Several folks had questions on the graph so some clarification is needed for the graph as I forget not everyone is as familiar with this stuff as I am.

The graphs are for NOS ( natural origin or wild if you like ) Chinook.

The purple line is the escapement goal.

The percentage at the bottom of the graph is percent of natural spawners that can be killed be it by commercial net, pole, in the bay, or in the river.

The colors in the graph bars correspond to the color code chart for years to show how many years to make or not escapement at the harvest rate on natural spawning populations.

Cliff Notes version of what the latest graphs say:

Regardless of which population(s) are chosen for primary conservation, anything greater than a 10% harvest rate progressively diminishes the agency's ability to meet its conservation goals.

Fisheries (comm and rec) will have to be constrained to stay under this 10% harvest/impact/exploitation rate.

That 10% harvest rate is, I believe, inside the bay and rivers. Reductions in outside fisheries (WA ocean, BC, AK) could be transferred into the bay to either accelerate recovery or allow a higher local harvest while still meeting conservation goals.

Unfortunately Caracassman, the chances of regulating take of WB bound Chinook outside the bay are nil. Even with an ESA listing Alaska and BC won't be easy to budge on this (see PS chinook harvest rates). The coastal fisheries in WA and OR don't really catch all that many of them either.

This came from Steve Thiesfeld and notice the word tentatively.

Hi All,

We are making some progress on coho. Let’s tentatively plan on an Ad-Hoc meeting for Tuesday night and see if we can have some more information to share. I’ve reserved the large conference room at the Montesano Regional Office from 5:30 to 9:00 pm. This is a painfully slow process, so I’ll confirm on Monday evening if we are a go for Tuesday or not.

Thanks for hanging in there with us.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201

It may be difficult. But, PS, WB, and GH should push for either reductions in harvest or pay the areas to produce the fish. Money for hatcheries, money for habitat, and so on. There should not be a free lunch.

CM -
As you know to achieve that sort of reductions for Washington Salmon will require changes in the Pacific Salmon treaty. I believe the current treaty is in effect through 2018.

Even when the negations for the new treaty begin as always it will be very difficult to get two foreign countries (Canada and Alaska) to agree to back off Washington fish. In the short term the best hope for Washington stocks is for the survivals of those north stocks decline to the point that to prevent over fishing of local northern stocks fish rates on the feeding grounds will have drop significantly.

Curt

The PST has, or had, a statement that the benefits of conservation/restoration should accrue to the entity that took the initial hit or paid for the work. WA should be aggressive on having the sacrifices made in WA return to WA.

Carcassman,

I agree there should be no free lunch, but until the state of Washington has some leverage on Alaska, its not going to happen. Alaska loves a free lunch and BC won't back off our fish until Alaska backs off their fish. It sucks to get lowholed.

Maybe if everyone in WA that went to Alaska boycotted for a year or two that might get their attention, but short of something dramatic, I don't think its going to happen.

That then begs the question of how much WA fish are worth to Washingtonians.

Are you kidding?

The good lodges are already booked solid in 2015 for the prime chinook dates.

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=900498

Don't misunderstand me. I don't think that would ever happen. I'm just saying it would take that sort of concerted action by WA residents to get Alaska's attention on this issue.

And even THAT probably wouldn't achieve the desired effect. I'm guessing more non-Washingtonians use those lodges than not.

well this "Washingtonian" won't be spending any of my dollars to "join the masses", in some combat fishing in many areas of Alaska. Chinook fish might be important to many but using the right gear.....lots of fun can be right in this State.......Get Willapa to get a bigger piece of the pie for sports, Chinook fishing MIGHT improve, jack fishing, early Coho.....October Coho, November Coho, December Coho, and yes January Coho.

Seems to me while not perfect, Washington has some fair fishing.....just need to have more areas with 4/3, to limit the nt commercial gill nets.

This year had some good fishing......well I had fun!!!!!!!

We went to Sitka last June and had a great time. Limits of kings, coho, and chicken hali's every day regardless of the weather, I'm not big on the large halibut, but they will go out for them if the clients ask. I'm sure there are lots of good operations in Sitka, but Alaska Premier Charters and their lodge is first class for a reasonable budget.

CCA on Willapa Management Plan.


Coastal Conservation Association
TEXAS • LOUISIANA • MISSISSIPPI • ALABAMA • FLORIDA • GEORGIA
SOUTH CAROLINA • NORTH CAROLINA • VIRGINIA • MARYLAND • NEW YORK CONNECTICUT • MASSACHUSETTS • NEW HAMPSHIRE • MAINE • OREGON • WASHINGTON



12/29/2014


Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091


Dear Commissioners:

We have been following the Department’s efforts to develop a new Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy with great interest. We commend the Commission and WDFW staff for initiating this important effort and for the high quality information you provide to the public about the economics, harvest sharing, and conservation of wild populations in the Willapa Bay system. The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) gave an impactful presentation on All H modeling (AHA) at the recent Commission meeting and we look forward to reviewing the results of AHA for the Willapa.

We write to urge the Commission to utilize the results of the pending AHA modeling as well as the economic information it has received on Willapa fisheries. We expect that these vital scientific and economic findings will inform the Commission as to the full extent of appropriate fishery reforms needed to improve fishery outcomes in the Willapa. These findings may even support changes beyond those already proposed, including the “aspirational goals” identified at the outset of this process.

The Willapa Bay salmon fishery, unlike nearly every other in Washington, is not affected by the complications of tribal co-management, Endangered Species Act listings, or a bi-state compact. This provides the Commission a unique opportunity to develop a plan that aggressively seeks to meet the conservation goals set out in your Hatchery and Harvest Reform Policy (C-3619). The Commission also has a clear path to begin optimizing the economic benefits and agency revenues these Willapa fisheries provide to the people and to Washington State.

We support your primary commitment to the conservation of wild salmon populations in Willapa Bay. For many years there controversy and concern have clouded the management of these populations. The AHA results could provide key insights into opportunities for reducing impacts on wild populations, which might actually justify maintaining if not increasing hatchery production.

The economic analysis provided by staff regarding Willapa Bay fisheries is an important step in changing how WDFW approaches fisheries management, and it also provides important information that should be utilized in developing policy to set future seasons and allocations. Many members of the public were surprised to learn that despite harvesting only approximately 10% of returning salmon, the recreational fishery generates 50% more economic benefit than commercial fisheries that take the other 90% of the harvest. These lopsided economics deserve your careful evaluation together with the AHA findings before developing any further criteria or allocations. You might consider requesting staff to provide an economic evaluation for each proposed option for both fishery and hatchery management. These evaluations could then become central in the development process for the new Willapa Bay Management Policy.

Thank you again for your service and commitment to the conservation of our fisheries.

Sincerely,
Nello Picinich, Executive Director CCA Washington

Here you go the meeting announcement for Willapa Management Meeting. I know no more than what you see as to format or content for the meeting. Highlighted in red place and time.


From: "Steven L Thiesfeld (DFW)" <Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 6:27:41 PM
Subject: FW: Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

Hi Everyone,

We aren’t as far along as we hoped for, but we will meet tomorrow with folks that can make it. I realize that some of you have other obligations and that the flooding may limit access, but we want to share with you what we have.

So that is 5:30-9:00 at the Montesano Regional office, Tuesday January 6th.

See you there.

Thanks

From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 4:36 PM
Subject: Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

Is this a public meeting?

It is a AD HOC open to the public. I do not know if Steve will do public and AD HOC together as last time but public will have a hour or so at the least at the end.

Steve Thiesfeld sent out the information presented last night at the AD HOC meeting. It is not explained all that well as to what it all means but if anyone wants it just PM me.

So how did the AD HOC meeting go? Well for sure not much information on Coho & the AHA model was available, so that is the bad. Now the good, staff has been working on Coho and continues to find errors in the model & this is good! It sounds a bit counter intuitive but it means staff is doing everything to insure that any and all errors are removed. For District 17 this is major progress as in the past any model harvest or otherwise just went as is. So a atta boy on effort maybe not so much on progress but then I think getting it right is staffs goal and it is slow going.

So some bullet points that jumped at me. The AD HOC Advisers? Considering past meetings the shift in attitude was rather startling. Regardless of labels Commercial, Rec, or Conservationist all came in ready to work. Particularly for the Commercial folks this was a real change but they made a real effort to understand the process underway. I realize this is about six weeks late but give them credit for coming in ready to do business.

Some issues continue to be a bit of a bear to get at. On Chinook it revolves around which stream is primary requiring a max of 20% pHOS ( hatchery reared fish spawning in the gravel ) Currently that is the Naselle but the option of Willapa being primary is out and about. The Willapa River hatchery is on Forks Creek but is many miles upstream and hatchery Chinook stop short and run past Forks Creek in substantial numbers. About 20% of the hatchery production that survives harvest stray which gives you about a ratio 3.5 hatchery to 1 wild in the gravel so this is not a good thing. So one thing up for consideration is reducing the Forks Creek Chinook production from 3.2 million to 370,000 or so which mathematically would take care of the problem. That is the good so now the bad. This could reduce 2T Rec Chinook fishery in fact the H+W mix could get low enough to restrict the fishery. It certainly would reduce the success rate to be sure. I still say the option of splitting the North and South bay and managing harvest for each separately is critical if one is maximize harvest while meeting conservation objectives.

On Chum I see the potential for a real brawl developing between those on the Conservation team and the agency. Steve Thiesfeld is going to send some information out but the thought of reducing the escapement is rather appalling. In its natural state 65% of the Willapa Bay salmon production was Chum followed by Coho and then some Chinook. That the so called pristine estuary has issues is so very true. The reality is the estuary is home to large scale aquaculture ( oysters ) and from spraying chemicals to many other human impacts pristine is not what the Willapa is. So the agency screwed up by not addressing these issues and now the fish pay the price? Nah one should not go there.

Short term / long term problems. Short term is that for the next four years the hatchery returns will continue off of the releases that are in the salt. How do you harvest without wiping out the natural spawners. Ok so we cut harvest but the Forks Creek production would overrun the gravel. Long term is whatever hatchery production is moving forward things are going to change. It matters little if it is Commercial or Rec things are going to be different. Many if not most will go into the fray trying to protect their fisheries and how that works out is yet to be seen.

The last issue that jumped at me was the management plan draft. The draft that the Commission is to review Saturday has not been released. Now just how on earth can anyone comment on a plan they have not seen? Simply put this is a major failure by agency staff and inappropriate is the kindest word I can find to describe this failure by the agency in the process. It is my thought that this failure resides in Olympia with Mr. Scott and his immediate staff not Region 6. Somebody needs to get their rear in gear and get that draft out by Thursday the 9th so the public can review it. Time to come out of the closet guys and face the music!