The days of this ditch are over.

Soon to be a destination bass fishery.

Yes / No I broodstocked Chinook for over 20 years and they have patterns but when where how is a moving target. 2020 2021 it was rain that pulled fish up early but last year the darn critters just did on thier own in a manner seldom seen! In the dry early 90s Chinook males came in normal timed but not females. When the Chum moved with time not water here came the females all at once with the Chum. For instance for years in tidewater Coho stoped at the pump house down to the Landing red fish all over everyone waited for incoming tide for FRESH fish or biters they were called. Then the location moved upstream to South Elma down to below the Satsop not staging mind pausing before going upstream to stage as the vast majority of Chehalis Coho stay below Porter staged up until it rains .

So it is always the same but different but if you know the fish and are on the river fishing you catch on to what the pattern is in any given year. That is how you know where to fish for heavens sake. One does not set and fish where a few are you go to where the fish are and now adays it can will be crowded!

Once salmon stage up waiting for rain they do not bite all that well if at all. When doing the move stop bit sure they bite but that is why you drift a stream or power boat around to find the fish. One thing the fish are not is trapped or stuck in the river no matter what the flows. What they are if you know where they are stopping headed up stream is catchable. Finding them is called fishing but how dare the fish provide real oportunity to inriver fishers!

In days back the managers had to know the fish and not on paper but what the river said. Now we manage with laptop computers and data. Like I said I am old but anyone should understand the real difference between the two. Also enforcement really does not care for inriver fishers. Lots of people with many lacking a real understanding of fishing etiquette, the rules, noisy, and the vast majority detest WDFW. None of that leads to a good outcome.

Of course, I agree with all of that, but I should clarify that I was not disappointed in myself for how I treated the R-6 staff; if anything, I was too kind to them. They're a bunch if lying shills, IMO, but I do my best to treat them with more respect than they deserve, perhaps hoping maybe someday the honey will catch me some flies....

Where I went wrong last year was taking the fight to the folks who were still fishing the bay while we were shut down in the tribs. I was jealous, and it manifested as misdirected anger, even toward folks I consider friends.

I completely understand and agree that last year's closures were inappropriate; maybe even incompetent. My fear, considering recent decisions about most every fishery I used to love, is that wrong-headed or not, shutting down tributaries seems to be WDFW'S favorite treatment for the disease of chronic overharvest in ocean mixed stock and terminal gillnet fisheries. The same folks are still in charge (right?), and I tend to believe people when they show me who they are....

The R-6 Harvest Manager is Mr. Lossee and he is new. Mike and Kim have a lot of years in the Chehalis system. Now in Olympia believe me they do not have Ron W's knowledge at all. Uninformed is a kind way to say it as to the concrete palace.

On the QIN side Ed took another position and who is who I do not know but some of the guys have years under the belt. That said the Nation team seldom fumbles the ball on tribal fisheries. It can be said " the Nation plays hardball and WDFW plays T ball!" ( from a retired WDFW employee )

Little edit: I did not directly awnser your question FF. Yes the same group is still in place both Monte & Oly.

If i remember right, last year and the year prior we had pretty similar July to end of september weather. You're right about the seldom seen fish phenomenon. A bunch of fish pushed through because the in river crowd wasn't there to intercept them. Those fish would have been harvested, same place same time in years past. Spent many a year on the lower satsop/nooch during low water years.

For bay and tidewater general rule is dry year or one spieces restricts commercial tribal or NT harvest which is usually Chinook. Trib weter the better moves them up but then bay and tidewater sucks.

So I always hope for a dry summer until Nov as I live on tidewater which gets me in trouble with old fishing pals inland. What pissed me off about last year and still does is inland fishers pray for a year like last year! It was really the best numbers and conditions anyone could have hoped for most certianly on the tribs / above Fuller Hill. In my mind it was a once in a lifetime Rec oportunity. I haved lived next to a Chehalis stream 65 years out of my 75 and I never seen a fish movement that large condensed into such a short time frame outside of Alaska. The sorry ass low flows crap WDFW paraded out is just that, a load of BS. Out of respect for Bob as it is his site I will refrain from expanding my vocabulary utilizing four letter words shaded dark blue and smoking to truly express my outrage for the injustice done to them, especially you bankies !!!

Just make things clear my home is next to Higgins Island and I DO NOT fish inland and most bay fishers do not either. I will put my time up against anyone in Chinook restoration and conservation. So let us get this straight it was not about low flows, it was not about Chinook conservation, it was about the bias toward freshwater inland fishers in every element of WDFW from harvest managers to enforcement to ground guys doing redds and research. To be honest I will say what I have said for years, it is discrimination toward those who choose to fish from the bank or lack the financial means to purchase a watercraft. If your poor or just cannot afford a boat to fish ocean or bay you do not count to WDFW. If you fish inland you are are unworthy of consideration or respect! This is reality of WDFW management.

True that! I was talking with a WDFW fish manager about the plans to restore coho in the Yakima. I noted that a successful recovery could reduce the resident trout population; a population that provides a significant fishery and income to the basin. His response was that they could go to Buoy 10 and fish coho out of a boat.

Look at all the fisheries that WDFW pushes; marine salmon, albacore, halibut, lingcod, walleye, Tiger Musky, kokanee. All rather good fisheries and all require a boat. I go on the website to look for where I can catch some trout species and all I get is lakes.

Well, if the WDFW is so inclined to favor folks angling from boats as the rule, they sure blew that favor to fishers out the door in MA11, along with their rather large fleet of boats.

+1

Area 11 anglers got absolutely fvcked over by WDFW.

Carry on…


Streamer

Why they want boat fisheries is an obvious when you look at the money spent to participate. I do not currently have an ocean boat, so I thought it might be fun to take my family out on a charter since they have never did it. Well, the price that popped up was $250 a pop. I know someone who owns a hotel down there and they are getting up and over $300 a night a room. Add in gas and food and one day fishing for my family of 5 could run between $1800 and $2000. Just not worth it to me.

Even in the 80s, and probably before, the economic value of the rec fishery was given high weight. That was one of the reasons for the pushing marine mixed stock fisheries; anglers spent more money to catch a fish. Interestingly, the commercial fisheries tend to run the other way; spend a little as possible to catch the most.

We have known since I was in school (history teacher was Noah) that marine mixed stock fisheries were not the way to go for salmon if conservation was your goal. Maximizing economic return is a different ballgame.

We are talking GH here and WDFW priorities are marine fisheries to be sure but it is not that simple especially for Chinook. Many cannot understand why there is no Chinook fishery on the Chehalis and it is very simple and complicated at the same time.

So first up in the world of harvest management our Chinook are managed for Grays Harbor Chinook. No entity other than WDFW separates the Chehalis & Humptulips for harvest.

Next the fact that Alaska & BC are modeled to harvest 11,461 GRAYS HARBOR CHINOOK, and SUS (marine coastal) 300. This leaves 12,024 Chehalis Chinook crossing the bar at Westport.

So in 2023 Chehalis Chinook harvest 1693 remained for a NT share of 847. This is where things get a bit strange for folks. The combined Chehalis Chinook NT impacts are modeled at 645 and QIN are 2225. Now as blood pressure rises this, it is GRAYS HARBOR impacts not Chehalis. In the world of harvest the combined Humptulips & Chehalis Grays Harbor impacts look different. 2023 NT GH Chinook impacts are NT 3076 and QIN are 3306.

So when one objects to Chehalis seasons or conservation needs limiting GH Rec opportunity the numbers do not say that in world of fish managers. Combined NT & QIN 2023 terminal fisheries result in 6,471 Grays Harbor Chinook harvested in terminal fisheries with Rec impacts at 2826. Inriver Rec are modeled at 2179 Humptulips Chinook and then we have C&R mortalities for Chehalis. This also limits Coho harvest as the small number of available Chehalis Chinook impacts available restrict Coho harvest or at the least time on the water for Recs.

So as a good friend of mine says “we are so screwed” with the AK & BC thing! Not just the NT fisheries but the QIN are also terminal fishers also.

This is the world of salmon management and I tell folks the words fair or conservation only come into play in a realistic manner in terminal fisheries.

There is something else going on, I think, with the world of WA fish management. When I started the practice was to bring in entry level folks (Bio 1, Fish Culturist 1) and promote up the chain into leadership positions.

Now, it seems, if you come in at low level there is a ceiling above which you can't rise. The leaders come in from the outside. You lose not only institutional memeory but actual folks who worked in the field, talked to the users, and so on. Bringing in folks from outside is a good way to ensure that they accept what you tell them is gospel.

I recieved some emails asking why cannot the NT side give some Humptulips impacts to allow for a season on the Chehalis? Well the Grays Harbor Policy calls for the two to be seperated. When the GHMP was developed the Commission went with what was and never really looked at why/what went with that seperation done by former Region 6 managers.

Next up is I do not know but say the state side gave up 1000 Chinook on the Humptulips could that allow for NT seasons on the Chehalis side? Not sure but it would be a math thing. For 2023 644 is the Chehalis C&R mortality charge so the 847 share minus 89 Chehalis tribal impacts is 758 add a 1000 gives 1758. I am not sure / yes. Depending on opening times and locations mathematically I think it could be done. It would require some timing restrictions on Wynoochee and Satsop but that number could work. Keeping in mind the bay fishery and Chinook tail at Aberdeen in week 43 or 3rd week of Oct. The prime weeks are Sept and adding and subtracting NT commercial days in the model to see a run timing based on history weeks 37 38 39 are the prime weeks or 10th through 27th of Sept.

So by managing the fishery to say Oct. 1 or 7 opening for Chinook or say Oct 7 to 31 you might fit it in. No matter what the Humptulips harvest reduction of a 1000 in the GH total to allow a Chehalis / Grays Harbor 1785 ( this years numbers ) impact can be managed. It would take some thought but is doable.

The key here is Grays Harbor Chinook as courts, feds, tribes do not split Chehalis Hump as WDFW does. Frankly the whole situation is a bit anal to me.

maybe they could shut the ocean down a year or two out westport so the in river fishers can have a king season..

The 300 number is the modeled impacts 2023 coastal marine fisheries all including Westport. Not much to gain there.

I suspect that it is something that is easily calculated but like Rivrguy says the courts and tribes would need to agree. I suspect that one reason for not acting is precendent. If that trade were made it "might" be seen as recognizing separate stocks.

I was told that it was WDFW harvest manager Tim Flint and Tony Floor in Olympia wanting a bay fishery that unilaterally did the seperation. Also a lot of Rec boat bay fishing advocates also were in the mix.This is from memory and I stayed away from harvest issues then. It is hard to argue conservation as I did back then and harvest at the same time! If anyone has a clearer memory take a shot at it but that is the best have.

I can see Tim and Tony going for a boat fishery in the Bay. My first boss when I started working in fish (Jim Johnston) told me that I would have to decide if I worked for the fish or the fisherman. I chose the carrier lit of working for the fish and them made the even greater error of working for the ecosystem. Any agency needs both, but it must listen to both.

I have a good friend who is a lobbyist for a large sportfishing organization. We were fishing the Columbia last week and naturally there was a discussion as to why NT commercial mostly takes precedence over the sport allocation. We all know it has to do with who has the most political power. Time after time we all bitch and moan but the fact that sportfishers aren't organized politically has kept adding nails to our collective coffin. Everything from Alaskan overharvest to WDFW not supporting the gillnet buyback program on the mainstem Columbia, to the political cowards running the show trembling every time the tribes speak, we shouldn't expect any different results since most folks just want to complain but not join an organization that can fight back. Even if you don't agree with PSA or CCA, there at least is political power in having bigger numbers to oppose commercial overharvest. There was a WDFW meeting recently on Willipa Bay management that was likely to affect sportfishers. A grand total of three hundred people sent in protest emails. That doesn't move the f ing needle at all.