When is the next meeting pertaining to Grays Harbor/Chehalis Basin?

Next week Thurs Mar 19 in Oly.... NRB first floor where the commission meetings are generally held.

From the WDFW NOF website:

March 19

Final Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay fisheries meeting:

9 a.m.-5 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., Olympia.

Ditto.

I scanned the paperwork that was available last week at the meeting in Montesano and figured I would share with those who were unable to attend.

Click Here To Download

I think it's time for us to come together with a common voice of solidarity on some key issues if the recreational community is gonna come out of that meeting with an acceptable fishing package.

Think about what's REALLY important to the recreational community as a whole.

Please don't try to kill your brother's fishery... instead think about where you share common ground, and let that commonality strengthen your position to maximize access to the harvestable fish in the basin.... even if it doesn't EXACTLY fit your pet style of fishing.

Bottom line, opportunity is ultimately limited by the available surpluses/impacts the forecasts say are available for the taking. WDFW's brand of conservation is a ZERO sum game that's played til every last paper fish on the allocation table is dead. Sorry to be blunt, but after being in the game for as long as I have, that's simply the way it's played. It ain't always pretty, but it is what it is.

Once "conservation" has been carved out of the pie (think of it as allocation to the gravel), the available impacts/surpluses define how big the recreational allocation could potentially be. How much of that potential allocation we as a community can realize rides on how we conduct ourselves at this meeting and what priorities we place on our "wish list". We could end up with maximum potential or we could end up squandering a significant chunk of that potential. Just remember that the way the impacts are stacking up in the two sub-basins, the gillnet fleet will be horribly constrained by incidental impacts to chinook on the Chehalis side where nearly half of the chinook encounters will count toward their impact (45% release mortality on chinook) -AND- wild coho impacts on the Hump side where every wild coho encounter counts 100% toward their impact (those fish will NOT be released). That COULD spell a tremendous windfall for the recreational community that is much more able to selectively harvest with much smaller impacts.

Moreover, the plan is written with a sport priority at Tier 1 run-sizes. That means impacts to the gillnetters are provided only to the extent that recreational opprtunity is NOT reduced. This is a point that I will be hammering home at every stage of the gillnet discussion. I would appreciate your collective support.

Where am I going with this?

Think about it folks, recreational opportunity begins with access to the fish.... if we're not even allowed on the water, what's the point?

The priority should first and foremost be to maximize recreational time on the water... more time = more opportunity.

The second priority is to maximize available area. More area = more opportunity. It also helps to spread out the effort which enhances the quality of the experience while afield.

Anybody who can't agree with those two points should not even bother attending the meeting... you will only hurt the cause! Fair enough?

Last priority is fishing "style". And while that wonderful diversity is what makes sport-fishing such an all-consuming passion for so many of us, it's also what we probably spend the most time arguing about as a community. Boat guys vs bank guys. Gear guys vs fly guys. Salt guys vs river guys. Lure guys vs bait guys. C&R guys vs whack'em-stack'em guys. Can't we all just get along?

Within the constraints of conservation, let's just do what we can to make as many possible fisheries happen as we can, for as long as we can, for as wide as we can. Please don't sweat the petty differences. The more energy you spend on those differences, the less we can collectively muster to advance the recreational agenda at large.

AGREED?

Makes sense. Well said.

I agree FnP but this is pretty tough.

Here is what I know:

Plenty of Kings on the Hump
Virtually No wild Coho on the Hump
Plenty of Hatchery Coho on the Hump

I will admit that I do not know anything about the hump so I decline to offer any ideas.

Now, the Chehalis, this is what I know.

Very few Kings
Lots of wild and hatchery Coho


I believe in the name of conservation we do all that we can do to limit exposure to the Kings. Though I have fished the Johns River fishery I do not know the nuances of it. My question here is how do we maximize the opportunity for Silvers while minimizing the risk to the Kings? Timing?

As for the river upstream of the Aberdeen bridge. I talked or emailed with three different biologists today about it and after those conversations I am thinking pretty radically but very simplistic.

Spinners, spoons or jigs, single barbless only

I know that puts a big hit on the traditional jack fishery with eggs, and the plug pullers which I am one. But I don't think we dare allow bait or the ability to fish King water with the plugs. Though I have caught Kings on the three aforementioned lures, I believe the impact on Kings is less.

The tributaries, primarily the Satsop and Wynoochee could be handled with a delayed opening and probably no bait.


Please feel free to discuss, argue and be mad. Lets do this now so that our voice can be unified later when its necessary.

JimB

I feel it is kind of odd that the Chehalis most years is labled as having surplus wild coho to harvest yet out of the last 11 years the Satsop and the Wynoochee have only made escapement twice for wild coho.

So Banki, since we are trying to formulate a unified voice, are you saying you would like to see Wild Coho release from the bay throughout the tribs?

JimB

I addressed the very same issue at the Monte meeting. I was somewhat perplexed by the Montesano Math, but closer inspection showed exactly what you say, and it all adds up.

Basically the upriver tribs are all exceeding goal by large margins while the lower tribs are falling short. Add it all together and the aggregate looks great.

There are a number of ways to address these lower trib shortfalls, and believe me, NONE of them will be popular. Bottom line is we need to stop killing so many wild coho bound for these tribs. That means either reducing limits, reducing time, and/or reducing area where these wild coho are being killed. 2009 may well give us a reprieve from having to make these tough choices as there are LOTS of wild coho in the forecast for THIS year. We may not be so lucky in subsequent years... that's almost certain.

So start thinking about creative ways on the non-treaty side to get those fish to the gravel and relay those ideas to the members of the committee.

Folks, I need you to be thinking MAXIMUM seasons for coho in the Chehalis basin constrained by Tier 1 chinook impacts. The non-treaty share if chinook impacts is 545 fish. Our coho wish list WILL be measured in terms of how many dead kings will result from prosecutin gthose fisheries. Remember the 543 Chehalis kings impacts must be shared with the non-treaty nets.

On the Hump, think about a MAXIMUM season on available chinook (hatch and wild) constrained by wild coho impact. On a Tier 1 coho, the goal is to have a maximum impact of 10% of the entire wild run-size. The forecast put 162 fish on the non-treaty side, but 10% of the run-size is actually 722 fish. The non-treaty share of that impact is 361 fish. Think about measures to minimize wild coho impacts so as to get maximum opportunity on available hatchery coho (about 16K non-treaty share) and chinook (about 2900 non-treaty share, 1800 wild and 1100 hatch). BTW we should be seeing 3 and 4 year old clipped chinook in this fishery.... we're talking typically 12-16 pounds or less.

Doc,
What are you doing up at 3 frickin 20 in the am, Kings on the hump are not open yet !!!
Also I already got the seasons for the hump side done, go ahead and post em, I don't care !!!!

Peace
Fly

Why don't you post your plan fly? Your a big part of this process and I know I would really like to see your ideas, especially on the Hump since I am truly clueless.

JimB

open it for everything basin wide.. kill them all..

Here ya go: Probably the best senario, for fish and to allow maximun fishability is to go with only the following in all river systems in Grays Harbor rivers and on the Humptulips side:

1. Spinners, spoons or jigs, single barbless only (been mentioned, lot's)

2. Commerical...very close monitoring...on board personnel, if no on board monitoring personnel are available, that boat doesn't fish. Complete tally of all fish, caught during the fishery. Cell phones, hand counters, call in times, when the maximun numbers, for any fish, are reached for "any species"......shut it down.....even if in the middle of a tide.

Seems that it is always the sports side that has to come up with creative ways to allow a fishery.......would like to see/hear more for protection of fish from the commerical side....both tribal and non-tribal.

Would sure be easy to monitor.....

This would "level the fishing field", everyone would feel about the same pain !!!!!


March 19th is getting close !!!!!!!!

Here is one of the propasals for the Hump Side.

Humptulips River 2009 proposed Salmon season.

September 1st to October 15th
Mouth to Highway 101
2 hatchery Coho or 1 hatchery Coho and 1 hatchery Chinook may be retained. Single point barbless hooks required, no bait allowed.
Season Limit of 4 Chinook

October 16th to November 30th
Mouth to The Forks
2 Hatchery Coho or 1 hatchery Coho and 1 Chinook may be retained daily. Single point Barbless hooks required.
Season Limit of 4 Chinook

December 1st to December 31st
Mouth to Forks
2 Hatchery Coho may be retained.



Peace
Fly

that will work ... but myself dont see them opening it up sept,1st .. i did ask again this year at the meeting to open it up for at least steelhead with just bobber and jig in sept ..hope they go your way..

Superfly:

I understand the restrictions on the Humptulips side.....what about the Chehalis side???

Trying to get a handle on what the rules might be on the Chehalis side???? or has some kind of deal been made, already????

no bait ???? barbless ???? no plugs ????? hardware only ????? jigs ????? spoons ???????

Thursday is fast approaching, NOF, March 18th

Full accounting for gillnetters???? Set number reached, shut it down?????

Every other day, netting????? Every 3rd day, netting allowed????

How about no more than 3 days a week, Total netting allowed.....tribe and non-tribe.......4 days, a week, net free 10/1 - 3/31

Fish need help.....sure don't see the cowboys coming up with any ideas....tribe doesn't seem to have any solutions......net, net, net

Seems that QIN and WDFW working off models that "JUST AREN"T WORKING"......

I cannot make the meeting on Thursday so I would like anyone that is interested and able to please ask WDFW about Spring Chinook impacts from QIN Sturgeon gillnet fisheries. Last year they had a 5 day a week schedule from April 16 to July 31 and I'm sure it had some impact on the already disasterous Spring Chinook escapement. The forecast is for below escapement goal returns again this year and these fish need protection.

My other request is ask about impact information on Chum in the Fall fisheries and what needs to be done to protect this critical species of the least sport value from impacts as we sport and commercial fish for the forecasted abundant Coho. The Chum in the Chehalis system are going fast and have been decreasing for many years, they play a critical role in supplying nutrients and cleaning streams for the other species that require better gravel, rearing and spawning habitat. Please remember them in your fight to protect everyones resource for the future.

Biolofisher:

I'd send an email........