The rec community may feel dissatisfied over the loss of fishing access but many of us have beaten up WDFW over the wild Chehalis Chinook rarely making escapement. I think sports probably have exceeded the M.A. 2.2 modeled sport harvest of 572 total Chinook (530 wild). I also think there were few fish counts to back up the harvest estimate for this critical run. Overall I believe we should support this first attempt at in season management and any attempt to meet escapement.

Now contrast this action with Willapa where the modeled Naselle wild Chinook limits the overall fishery. The nets have taken 9,945 hatchery Chinook against a modeled 5,020 hatchery Chinook through September 8. The modeled season total of 8,046 hatchery Chinook has already been exceeded. This would indicate over harvest of the Naselle wilds as well. So what was the WDFW response? They quit posting the harvest numbers while the nets fish on!!!

OK this is the lay of the land as to escapement and the Fall Harvest Model. With the QIN seasons in ( R-6 refused to provide the model with the QIN in it so I put their season in ) Chehalis Chinook are minus 1987 and Hump is plus 1023. WDF&W does not separate Chehalis & Hump Chum Chum are minus 2702 for all of Grays Harbor and Chinook are 964 short Grays Harbor as a whole.

The root of this mess is the QIN get half of what comes across the bar by court decision. They are not required to manage separately for the two watersheds only for Grays Harbor as a whole. It was WDF&W that separated the two streams some years back in its management plan and these two methods are not necessarily compatible. When the QIN choose to max their harvest rights WDF&W must mold their impacts around the QIN court mandated harvest. WDF&W continues to choose not too but rather continue down WE STATE THEY INDIAN BIT road. Or to put it another way the state continues to try and impose their system upon the QIN's which is court mandated.

So we get this mess. QIN's fault? Don't think so. Can they do better? Oh he-- yes but with the attitude of WDF&W if I was a QIN fisher I would fly the bird right at them also.

I definitely agree that the Chehalis Chinook management is a mess, but there is really nothing for WDFW to mold to. If the department shut down all NT fishing in the bay and in all the Chehalis system rivers the QIN would still plan to take 3,370 wild Chehalis Chinook against a total harvestable 2,768 fish. It may be their legal right but an extra thousand Humptulips fish will do nothing for this years Chehalis escapement or for the future of the Chehalis system wild Chinook run. Two managers with different agendas just does not work for one resource.

Major problem, that I see.......

2 major government identities, WDFW and QIN, handling the same waters in a different manner....

Suggest WDFW and QIN, get on the same page....manage Chehalis and Humptulips as one bay........used to be that way and things seems to work.

Go back to the before Tim Flint days !!!!!!

Not sure I agree SB. To frame it right one has to factor in that the Chinook hatchery production is of broodstocked parents and most returning adult from that program spawn naturally. Same with the Hump and on average near 50% of the Humptulips Chinook are from hatchery origin parents. So the wild / hatchery separation is bogus as well the separation of wild / hatchery being very misleading. In fact WDF&W does not distinguish any difference in Chum at ......... all H or W same fish. Something I strongly disagree with by the way.

So we have in the Chehalis 3392 Chinook to harvest and Hump 5641 for a total of 9033 available for harvest. Now the Chehalis with the QIN in the model show 3370 QIN harvested Chinook or 20 left for the non treaty. Now on the Hump after QIN harvest 4378 are available for harvest AFTER the QIN have their seasons.

Then comes the moment of truth. The QIN know full well the state impact numbers are pure BS. It has been up on this BB and others including in writing to the Commission. The bay impacts are WAY under modeled, the NT Nets WAY under modeled and the inriver well you poor suckers will get about half what it says. Add to the huge hatchery cuts that gutted the Hump Tribal Coho fishery and does anyone really think they should believe anything WDF&W says? Be willing to compromise? I think not.

From designing a separate management plan to posting state seasons in March ( before meeting with the QIN ) to just plain fabricating harvest impacts WDF&W created this mess. While I do not agree with many many current QIN policies I certainly understand why they view things as they do. The QIN did not create this mess and it appears they have grown tired of dealing with a duplistic right close to dishonest R 6 staff.

They have told us for years that in season management is not an option. They have continuously underestimated the catching power of the sport fleet even though they have been asked year after year to look at it and compare to the model. With a dismal king escapement failure of 13 out of 16 years, they should err on the side of conservation and not open for king retention when there are only a few hundred "paper fish" to fund the fishery. Those kings should be used for funding as liberal of a coho fishery as the plan allows. We are getting manipulated by their "generous" offer of king retention, but the real deal is that if we fish for kings, it gives tacit approval for the gillnetters to have more days. Once the model is updated to reflect the improved catching power of the sport fleet, meaning if we can get away from using "the 20 year average", and start using "the 5 year average", chinook retention will be a thing of the past until they manage to get the run healthy. Regarding this closure, their intentions may be viewed as good by some, yes they are protecting kings, but if the model was correct, and the management was proper, it would not have opened for retention in the first place, and the sports wouldn't be left with a bad taste in their mouth again, shut down for coho fishing on one of the largest coho runs in history.

F4B Yes and no. If the bay and the inriver sport had not taken those Chinook R - 6 would have simply made them available to the NT nets for increased Coho netting days. At this moment in time this is the simple rule. " All Paper Harvestable Fish Must Die " which drives the conversation on seasons front to back. Now if the model was made to reflect reality then yes but probably no sport Chinook bay season. Then again probably not much NT nets either as the 45% release mortality is just a pure fabrication. The two primary GH marine fisheries both have problems with accuracy in the model. QIN is the most accurate as to reflecting truly they will harvest. Inriver gets screwed and modeled well past what will really be caught but the two marine fisheries? Not even in the realm of reality.

After a little jiggle R6 has the Willapa commercial harvest up. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html 15551 commercial Chinook caught so far and the model showed 13512 total sport & commercial harvest. Now there could be more fish or they were early, or they really had a lot of commercial effort or ............... well you can pick.

Now compare to GH and wella sports bay running ahead / shut it down. Strange how that double standard works.

I have to think the QIN has more than a little effect on the differences between the management of the two basins. If the State overfishes Grays Harbor, tribal fisheries are impacted (in terms of catch- not effort). In Willapa, only the fish suffer when overharvest occurs. The QIN can sue; fish cannot.

Two likely worthless cents on the matter....

Had a little jump in PM as how this happened / what can we do? As to what just happened, WDF&W R 6 posted the Willapa landings after inquiries this weekend about why they weren't posted. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html As of Sept. 22nd, the nets have landed and sold to buyers 13,551 hatchery Chinook.

The model shows shows WDFW had anticipated 8,047 net impacts and 3,015 Rec impacts (Marine & FW combined) for a season total for both user groups of 13,512. The commercial nets at this point are 5,504 over the predicted net impact at this point exceed and exceed the entire anticipated impact of both Rec and net seasons in the model for the entire year and we still have a way to go.

"Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)" <Kirt.Hughes@dfw.wa.gov> is the Fish Program Manager that filed a declaration in the court case stating he could make an "inseason adjustment" if the commercial season began to overfish and undermine the escapement goals. I'd suggest he be reminded of his assurance and CC the at commission@dfw.wa.gov

Lots going on with the Chehalis issues and I will update as soon as I can link to the documents on the FTC website.

Now this bit below is something else. Gary e mailed Kirt Hughes on the Willapa seasons and Kirt responded. ( best to read it bottom post up ) and nothing in his response was not true. What it was is pure 100% BS! The response from Kirt Hughes was intended to mislead and leave a COMPLETELY inaccurate picture of the issues and agency actions with Gary. As luck would have it Gary sought out help and that information is also in the thread.

So folks I would urge you to in the future do not go at R-6 and CC the Commission but rather go right at the Commission and CC R-6. That way R-6 has to meet the Commissioners standards for being forthright and honest. I think it is a better approach as it is clear that the standards the Commissioners have attempted to maintain do not exist in the District 17 ( Willapa & GH ) R-6 staff.


The E mail thread:


Not surprising. The dip in stuff is crappola. Here's some info for a response if you are so inclined.

The dip-in fishery is shown in the FRAM as July 22nd-August 15th. The FRAM predicted they would catch 1833 and they landed 2572. During the dip in they were over prediction by 739 fish. From Aug 16-Sept 22nd the FRAM predicted they would catch 6506. Instead, they caught 10,979 or 4,473 over expectation with the harvest overage occurring in September after the dip-in was long over. The over-whelming majority of the fish taken over the prediction is clearly Willapa and not Columbia fish.

In it's recent emergency rule WDFW stated "Catch and sampling information to date, suggests that the amount of effort and recreational harvest of Chinook in marine area 2-2 (Grays Harbor) will exceed pre-season expectations with no indication that the runsize is commensurately larger." The returns of upriver brights in the Columbia are coming in above the preseason forecast, the joint staff report created by WA & OR dated Sept 12, 2013 finds lower river hatchery returns for Chinook are coming in below expectations (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/crc/2013/crc12sep13_facta.pdf). Willapa Chinook are not "upriver brights" and closely resemble the lower river hatchery Chinook found in the Columbia and those in Grays Harbor where you have already stated no evidence exists that would lead you to believe the run would be larger.

It is obvious your judgement of season conditions changes dramatically depending on whether it is the recreation season or the commercial gill nets that need adjustment.



My response from Kirt

Gary L Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW) (DFW) <Kirt.Hughes@dfw.wa.gov>
To: lk2thlite <lk2thlite@aol.com>
Cc: Commission (DFW) <COMMISSION@dfw.wa.gov>; Warren, Ron R (DFW) (DFW) <Ron.Warren@dfw.wa.gov>; Scott, Jim B (DFW) (DFW) <James.Scott@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Tue, Sep 24, 2013 7:35 am
Subject: RE: Chinook Impacts & Overharvest in the Willapa Bay

Thanks Gary. Appreciate the contact. I am well aware of the catch. There is nothing nefarious about not posting the update prior to Monday. This is a time when staff are quite busy and our posting of the information is a lower priority than monitoring and sampling fisheries.

As you and I have discussed a before catch modeling is based on pre-season predicted abundance using recent harvest rates to predict future harvest. In our monitoring of the Willapa Bay commercial fishery we are seeing effort that is similar to our expectation. Early catch of Chinook is higher relative to prediction than later catches. And I can well imagine that you have seen dam counts at Bonneville. Passage has been particularly good, typically this feeds into early season catches in Willapa – the dip-ins.




From: lk2thlite@aol.com [mailto:lk2thlite@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:51 PM
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Cc: Commission (DFW)
Subject: Chinook Impacts & Overharvest in the Willapa Bay

Dear Kirt,

Once again we are looking at a failure by WDFW and Kirt Hughes for in season management on the Willapa Bay. The facts are know posted with the numbers and the Commercial Harvest continues! This is not acceptable any more and I would like some answers of why this is allowed to continue and when will it end.

They just posted the Willapa landings after inquiries this weekend about why they weren't posted. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

The first attached PDF is what the web site shows. As of Sept. 22nd, the nets have landed and sold to buyers 13,551 hatchery Chinook.

The second PDF is the FRAM cover page. It shows WDFW had anticipated 8,047 net impacts and 3,015 Rec impacts (Marine & FW combined) for a season total for both user groups of 13,512. The commercial nets at this point are 5,504 over the predicted net impact at this point exceed and exceed the entire anticipated impact of both Rec and net seasons in the FRAM for the entire year and we still have a way to go.

I look forward to your response in these matters.

GDITMMM!

Received this in a E mail. Anyone know the details of the incident listed below? As it was dismissed I would think it was a thin charge or something else and I know little.

Yesterday we went to Tokeland & pulled my camper home for the season. We stopped in the Raymond dairy Queen for lunch.
I picked up a copy of the Sept 26th Pacific County Press & on the "Police Beat" section, Frank M. Blake Jr. 58, Tokeland, failure to report commercial fish harvest/delivery, failure to record catch on receiving ticket; avoiding wildlife check station/inspection, failed to record catch on fish receiving ticket, dismissed. Why dismissed, unless WDFW agent did not show, or the judge was a brother-in-law?

Now this is about as good as it gets. These are E mail threads with first post bottom so read with that in mind. Now I am retired but if I had told my boss NO when asked to something my butt would have been in a sling. I think maybe Mr. Warren has a bit more than a little personnel problem with some of his staff.

From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: Chum
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:05:00 AM



No!

-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:50 AM To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Chum

Can you develop a draft

From: ----------
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:24 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW) Cc: Scott, Jim B (DFW) Subject: Chum

Mr. Warren,

After reviewing the Grays Harbor advisory meeting last night, ( March 6, 2013 ) I found the information provided to well short of what is needed to address Chum harvest for Grays Harbor as a whole or the Chehalis Basin. As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group I am formally requesting to be provided the following information.

1. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Humptulips River.

2. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Chehalis River.

3. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Satsop River.

D---



Second E mail:

From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: Chum
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:07:00 AM



Allow me to rephrase that. I formally object to your request, but will draft a response.

-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:50 AM To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Chum

Can you develop a draft

From: D-----
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:24 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW) Cc: Scott, Jim B (DFW) Subject: Chum

Mr. Warren,

After reviewing the Grays Harbor advisory meeting last night, ( March 6, 2013 ) I found the information provided to well short of what is needed to address Chum harvest for Grays Harbor as a whole or the Chehalis Basin. As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group I am formally requesting to be provided the following information.

1. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Humptulips River.

2. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Chehalis River.

3. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Satsop River.

Dave

ROUND TWO:

On September 26, 2013, the second petition was filed objecting to the commercial gill net seasons set this year by WDFW. The second petition challenges the season set for Grays Harbor and the petitioners write up along with the court documents can be viewed here. http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process I will continue to update and provide additional information in the coming days.

One thing you may not be aware of is that a few years ago Ron Warren got promoted / transferred ? to Olympia & Kirt took over his R6 Fish Program Manager position. (By the way, Ron's wife works for the Personell Board in Olympia). Then when a personell cut was implimented because of funding cuts, Ron stepped back into his old position at R6, so Kirt then was slid back a notch.

Maybe there is some antimosity between the two?

You got RW up & down / left - right about half right & Penny retired.

This is a bit of an eye opener but to understand what is going on in the E mail one needs to get the lay of the land at that time. At the Montesano NOF public input meeting Ron Warren was bounced rather hard on the APA process http://www.ora.wa.gov/regulatory/rulemaking.asp and how he was representing it as one thing when it was really another. Now the sad part about that? In 2010 Lori Pruess notified Ron, Kirt Hughes, and Barbara McClellan that they could not alter the CR process without a redo. There is a set of internal guidelines that staff are supposed to follow also. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/

Now that Ron Warren could have forgotten the Email from Preuss in 2010, OK maybe but ain't noway nohow Kirt & Barbara did as they are the District 17 ( GH & Willapa ) staff who fill out the forms many times each year. So they set there in Montesano knowing full well RW was putting out pure BS at the Montesano meeting. So fast forward to the March 29th NOF meeting in Olympia and prior to the meeting the gentleman that got into it with RW at the Montesano NOF concerning the misrepresentation of the legal side of the WAC process & NOF in general sends RW the E mail in the thread.

To the heart of the matter. First RW has no intention of responding at this point? When would he respond then? After everything is done? ( that is the normal WDF&W approach ) Second up is the fact that R -6 Fish Program manager is asking the WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison & Administrative Regulations Coordinator for talking points? What the h--- are we paying the District 17 staff for anyway? To do needlepoint? Third just look at the CC list in RW's E mail. Now that RW would want to make others aware of the difficulties he was encountering in the NOF / CR 102 process strikes me as a rather straight forward approach. Again the question, where and earth are District 17 staff at? Mars? To even start to do the CR 102 for the Commercial WAC they have to know what RW is looking for to present as talking points.

Now to Lori's response which I will highlight but as always read the E-mail thread bottom up. I cannot imagine her surprise when she received that request as it in all likelihood " made her day".




From: Preuss, Lori (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: My position
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:56:00 PM



Hi, Ron. I really am not the appropriate person to ask for speaking points. I have never attended a NOF meeting or a NOF public hearing. Shouldn't your own staff be able to tell you what goes on at NOF public hearings and give you speaking points? Shouldn’t they know how a rule change should be presented to the public? I'm confused.


Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045 WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov 360.902.2930
Fax 360.902.2155

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at 360.902.2930, and return this message to the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife immediately.



-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:21 PM To: Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Cc: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Scharpf, Mike M (DFW); Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW); Frymire, Bill (ATG); Long, John A (DFW); Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW); Pattillo, Patrick (DFW); Scott, Jim B (DFW); Culver, Michele K (DFW)
Subject: FW: My position

Lori, at least at this point in the process I don't plan on replying to Mr. Hamilton, but was hoping that you could provide me with some speaking points in case this comes up at tomorrow's meeting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: My position

Ron- As a courtesy, I offer the following comments.

I've never attended a NOF meeting in Olympia before but I've listened to dozens who have. I find their description of past meetings very disturbing. Slide show presentations called "proposals" without any language of a proposed WAC change being made available. This puts the "horse behind the cart". A written proposal is typically laid out for a proposed change in a rule or law, then a slide show helps the viewer understand the effect of the expressed language.

Then, they describe how all present are denied any ability to express an opinion on the slide show presentation broken down individually to match the two separate WACs (rec & commercial). Worst, they describe how all present are pressured to vote on a proposal that has never been expressed in writing and again, both the unpublished proposals are somehow combined into one. In this type process, it can hardly be consider public input on a proposal as no one has ever seen a proposal and a slide show can not be substituted for disclosure of the expressed language of a proposal.

Finally, they describe extreme pressure from WDFW leaving them with the impression all present have to "vote" (not certain how this works as this is not a legislative body with any authority to pass law). Having to vote and combining rec and commercial seasons together denies anyone in attendance the ability to comment in favor or opposition of either WAC independently so no public input is provided on either one as well.

I find these comments similar to those coming from observers in the GH Harbor Advisory Group. So, from beginning to end, the 2013 and previous NOF processes do not conform with state law and procedures used in public input processes.


In closing, it is my position that WDFW has confirmed between 400-500 citizens are now "on the record" opposing the proposed commercial fishing seasons in Grays Harbor and Willapa during the WAC process underway and NOF process as well. Any "vote" held Friday in the NOF process will have to recognize those who have already voted no. One can not be required to be present in the room to participate in a public process. Therefore, unless all those on the record in opposition attend and reverse their position, no consensus can be reached regarding commercial seasons and selective fishing for nets in Grays Harbor and

Willapa unless that consensus rejects a selective fishing commercial net season in both estuaries.

Respectfully,
Tim

PM requested I put up a example of R-6 District 17 staff being told that problems existed in the WAC CR 102 process. So I dug up this one and I will highlight Lori's feed back.


From: Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject :


Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Tuesday , April 26, 2011 12:28 PM
Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Mcclellan , Barbara A (DFW) Ashbrook , Charmane E (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW) RE: WACS for OTS



Yes. I will send the WACs back to you when I get them from OTS, and you can make the changes then. I don't know if you're aware of Puget Sound Harvesters Association's (PSHA's) complaints about Jeromy changing his proposed rules weeks after he filed his CR-102, but you need to hope no one complains about you making substantial changes to your rules so late in the game. The version of the WACs filed with the CR-102s is supposed to reflect the rules as you intend them to be, not a best-guestimate. It is possible that the fallout from PSHA's complaints will cause people to finally pay attention to this. Just a head's up.


Lori Preuss,WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator Lori.preuss@dfw.wa .gov
360.902.2930
Fax 360.902.2155


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at 360.902.2930, and return this message to the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife immediately .



From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:00 AM
To: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW); Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Subject: RE: WACs for OTS
Importance: High

Lori -
I need to make a couple changes to what we sent on Friday. Is that still doable?


From: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW) Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:51 PM To: Preuss,Lori (DFW)
Cc: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Subject: WACs for OTS

Lori, Attached are the 3 WACs where changes have been made in track changes from the CR-102 version that was filed in April and need to be sent to OTS for formatting. They are WACs 22-22-020, 220-40-027, and 220- 36-023.

Please send these to OTS to be formatted and send back to me when you get them back from OTS. When I get the formatted versions back from you, I will make sure to get them to John for the website because our hearing is set for May 10 and we are scheduled to meet with the Director on May 12.

I know you are on furlough today but our furlough was moved to Monday, the 25th. So I wanted to get these to you today so you will have it first thing Monday morning .

Thanks. Barbara

For those who've never watched the Chehalis Fling video and witnessed selective fishing (catch and release) with a net, I've been provided a remarkable report created by unknown WDFW staff on the behavior of the commercial fishers during a "tangle net" fishery installed in Willapa Bay in 2004. Lists problems with gillnetters by name and details how they are avoiding WDFW observers, not using the recovery boxes when out of sight of observers, offensive verbal commentaries, seals are hammering the fish in the nets and on and on and on. YOU GOTTA READ THIS THING! https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yMW1vbEtKUTM3UHM/edit?usp=drive_web

It is a few pages long but if you ever had doubts about what happens when WDF&W staff attempt to monitor the Non Treaty commercial fishery this should end that thought. The first day out this season is " test " Tangle net fishery I might add.

Requested to post the paper so here goes.

2004 Willapa Bay Tangle-net Fishery

This is a brief narrative of a portion of the 2004 Willapa Bay Tangle net fishery from observations @ Tokeland, WA. Started narrative the second day of the fishery, to record what appeared to be fishery that would be discussed at length sometime in the future, wanting to set down actual occurrences while fresh in my memory. Statements below can be corroborated by Steve Larsson, Steve Wargo, or Suzan Neari ng, Tokeland observers during this fishery. Allan Hollingsworth did not go out (called me the night before and said not worth it, he caught too few fish that day-Thursday@2 l coho and 4 or 5 Chinook vs. 60+ coho and 6 Chinook on Wednesday. Arthor Swanson in South Bend also contacted me after I left a message, saying he was also not going out. Didn 't want to tear up his Col. River net. I had called him because he was the only fishermen going out from South Bend, and I was going to place Steve Wargo on his vessel. Early Friday morning, Larry Christiansen (vessel Kristina) pulled out and headed north, towards Grays Harbor , his net real covered with a tight fitting wrap or tarp.

Friday, Oct 151-Andy Mitby and Eric were the only boats to go out and fish. They left the docks during midmorning. When first observed after launching the support boat, they were all the way west to near the deadline at the rock jetty and fished fairly far apart for the most part. Neither could get most fish in prior to getting robbed by a seal, which started to show up at both boat locations after the first drift. They both caught a few fish (approx 8 and 6 coho and a few chum, (pespectively) before giving up in disgust.

While observing the fishery Steve Larsson and I were impressed with the number of chinook and coho that were imaged on the fish finder offshore at the 65 foot (10 fathom ) line-they were thick from top to bottom of water column at this depth, and many coho were evident in the areas closer to shore (15 to 25 feet of depth)

Of all the boats signed up for the fishery in Tokeland, only Andy or Eric Mitby ever fished the first day. In Nahcotta, only Gary Walters and one other boat went out for a brief time. Only a few salmon caught, Gary Walters shocked the observer by systematically whacking every spiny dogfish in the net against the side of the boat prior to their release (information I past onto Dan Klump when I contacted him that evening). Other than these general recollections, I do not want to try to record further occurrences during first day of fishery from memory, but it was similar to what I observed that occurred on Saturday, the next day of the fishery (at least at my location in Tokeland).

On Saturday, Oct 2, 2004 I was supervising the observer crew assigned to sample the tangle net fishery. Steve Larsson and I arrived at Tokeland Launch at approx 5:15 AM. Suzan Nearing already there, Steve Wargo pulled in right behind us. Talked for a few moments, then settled back and waited for fishermen to show up, as we have since the first day of the fishery. At least twice before full daylight, vehicles drove close enough to observe that we were in fact there waiting, and then turned around and left the area. During the day, checked on several people going to and from their vessels, but were told they were not going out, but would pull out later in the day, getting ready for the Grays Harbor fishery. Viking(?) did pull out later in the day. The Kimberley pulled out, then was re-launched in the afternoon

At approximately mid morning, Andy Mitby came by and asked if he went out, would he have to take an observer. I told him yes, and he informed me it "then was not worth it to go". He told me that " you know that without an observer, he would do much better, but with an observer, it was just not worth it to go out. ...you understand ." He then left. He came back a short time later, with his crewman, and said he was going out. And he then requested that Steve Wargo was who he wanted on his boat. As he was making preparations to go out, I sent Steve to the dock and he got aboard. The Brothers Three then left the dock. I waited approximately 25 minutes, then Steve Larson and I launched the support boat, and went out to observe the Brothers Three in action. As we got within sight of the boat, they were finishing a drift. In the last 100 feet of net, I observed a large Chinook in the net, tail up. Andy Mitby expertly extricated the fish from the net, which was still very vigorous, and slipped it back into the water. A nice job .

When I came around to view the other side of the boat , I could see that the fish box was flowing with water, ready to receive any distressed Chinook (none were in the box) . They shut the pump down and motored back northwest along the beach for another set. They were just above marker 15. However, during the next 2 full sets (both fairly short
duration soaks) and a short partial set (also short soak), the pump was NOT on at any time. The box had no water flowing through it while the net was set out or retrieved during any subsequent sets. This was while Andy knew I was observing him from Jess than 200 meters, with binoculars.

During one set, Andy untied from the net, and motored along its length to the midway point, trying to beat a seal to several fish in the web. Later he came back towards the seaward end and retied , after also losing a race to at least one fish at that end . Steve Wargo motioned me over at this time. We cruised up to within a short distance of the fish and Steve asked me what should be done with a CHINOOK that had it's head bitten of by a seal that was in the boat. I told him that it must be put back into the water. At this Andy became somewhat agitated, and said that he thought that was wastage . I told him that the WAC stated all Chinook must be released . He obviously did not like the answer I gave him . I asked him what he wanted me to do. He said that he thought he should be able to keep the fish, that it was wastage (which was against the law) to put it back . I told him he might consider it wastage, but others would not.

We then motored some distance away, and Andy reset. I observed Andy to then put into the water two fish that appeared to be partial fish, as he was getting ready to pull his set. After finishing with this brief set (losing some more coho to seals), he motored out to me on his way back in and continued the discussion of the "wasted" salmon. When he again commented that he thought it was wastage, that he thought he should be allowed to keep the fish. He said since he had a State observer on board, and that I also saw the fish, it was obvious that he was not trying to "work the system" and was being completely honest. He just thought it was wrong to put the fish back. I told him that a seal started on it, and if put back, a seal would finish it, that the fish would not go to waste . He was not impressed by my logic.

Shortly thereafter, he returned to the dock, done for the day. He told me over his shoulder while motoring away that he would be out tomorrow. Andy was the only one to fish the second day of the fishery. Eric Mitby had a ballgame practice with his son, or some other conflict, so he did not go out.

Although this second day is the day I started this narrative (the Oct 1st events in top paragraphs were drawn from memory) upon Dan Klump's strong suggestion , it was obvious to myself, and the other observers, throughout the preceding discussions with Andy, Eric Mitby and others at the parking lot that they believed the tangle net is a failure, as far a fishing in Tokeland anyway. Andy told me the day before, that it is too rough usually to fish a tangle net in the area he was fishing, that fish drop out too easily, and that there were too many seals around to allow any sort of reasonable fishing effort (my wording for his thoughts) . Several times they admitted to their observers that there "were a lot of fish out here", and that they could have done great without an observer onboard and use of a tangle net. It was very obvious that fishermen were waiting to see if we would leave, and then they would go out, without observers .

Andy Mitby admitted as much several times to Steve Wargo,. He could not believe we would wait around for the full 12 hours, just to observe one boat (he and/or Eric or anyone else) for the full period of the fishery. When he asked Steve if Enforcement would also be around , and was told yes, he was incredulous. "You mean they would come out just to check on only one (my) boat out there?" Steve told him yes, and Steve said he seemed disappointed at that prospect.

Additionally, while talking with Suzan Nearing about her observations the day before , she told me that although Andy had set the live box up, checked its operation and primed the pump before taking of from the dock, at no time was the pump and live box operating while he had made his sets the day before. I told her that was a violation of the WAC for this fishery, and she was very sorry that she had not read through all the information I had supplied her with the night before. She said that Andy told her he "didn't need his pump on, because he was not getting any fish in the boat." Andy and Eric lost numerous fish to seals the first day of the fishery (and Andy lost "a lot"today-Saturday-as well), and coho were observed to also drop out of the net prior to coming on board. Andy also had a seal almost take a nice chinook out of his hands as he was carefully releasing it out of the net. This infuriated Andy. Eric and Andy said they could not understand why they were not allowed to use gear like in Grays Harbor fishery, with a damn observer. That these tangle nets just didn't work here, and there were way to many seals to effectively fish this gear. When I asked if a larger number of boats out fishing would have helped keep the seals off the nets somewhat, they would not answer me. This is an important point. The fishermen DID successfully do this during the regular season fishery. During the regular season, after morning checks of fish at Nelson Crab, I observed boats from the area near the western boundary, and near "Pamper Beach" (Buoy 15) near Nelson Crab using the "multiple boat tactics" during the regular season. Boats would be taking turns lining up for a drift. With others waiting their tum, there was enough traffic and movement that the seals stayed way from the nets to a large extent. So why didn't they use the same tactics now?

Similarly, many of the comments from observers stationed in Nahcotta showed that many did not want to participate in the fishery, because "that would prove that the State was right, so were not going to do it, they are just screwing with us again, they don't give us anything." Also, that these net were very expensive, and they were not going to rip them up for only a few fish. Speaking to a sampler prior to finding out who they were, one fishermen said they would have gone out, damn the regulations, but the damn State had observers at the Harbor, and they could get out without being observed. Mnay fishermen at both ports were unhappy with this fishery even being set up, and didn't appreciate Bob Lake or whomever it was that pushed it through.

Contacted Dan Klump and explained situation, asked if Enforcement would be available Sunday, but he said no. However, that they would try to get someone to patrol fishery at Tokeland (my suggestion) for Monday, when samplers would probably be gone. I expressed my desire to have Enforcement make this a top priority, due to the likelihood of illegal activity in the absence of observers. I asked him to launch at Tokeland, and make their presence very obvious. He said he would work to get someone out there for Monday.

Sunday Oct 3rd. The same pattern of the last few days-slow vehicle prowls in early AM to check on our presence, and then no netters going near the docks, except to work on
their boats for Grays Harbor, (or the next Willapa Bay opener), or to check on equipment repairs. Discussions with several fishermen-not worth it to go out, too many seals, net rules B.S., etc. etc. etc. Stayed until 5:45 PM. Everyone asked us at every opportunity if we would be there Monday. I said yes. It was obvious to myself (and the observers) that at least some portion of the fleet was waiting for us to leave early, and they would then go out. When questioned about Enforcement, I told them that Enforcement did not clear
their plans with me, but I assumed they could be around at any time the fishery was open.

Upon returning to the office, I left messages with Dan Klump, & Sgt. Rhoden about the need to patrol Tokeland on Monday, due to possible absence of observers (into overtime pay due to 3 days at +12 hour days). Called Ron Warren, explained situation, and got verbal authority authorizing overtime for observers IF they felt comfortable doing this without my presence for backup. But he did not want people to feel they were putting themselves at risk, or for undue verbal abuse.

Contacted Steve Wargo, who said he would sample Tokeland on MOnday. Left messages for Suzie Nearing to also have her repeat tomorrow, but had received no answer as of
9:15 PM. Contacted Rannele Reber, but she and Freider Mack were schedules to work for Wendy Beegley tomorrow. Contacted alternate observer Kim Andersen, but she also was to work for Wendy on Monday. However, she was willing to go, and would contact Wendy to ask permission to go to Tokeland. Kim called back at AM, said she could (not) go. I then contacted Ron Warren again to tell him of my efforts, and that Steve Wargo was willing to sample alone if needed. I left for home at 10:15 PM.

Monday Oct 4th, I received a cell phone call from Suzan Nearing at 7:20 AM while on my way to the Montesano office. She apologized for not getting back to me sooner. She had turned off her cell phone the night before, thinking we were done with the observer project. She said she was willing to go out to Tokeland to sample boats, even though it was after 5 AM . I said that I thought it might be helpful if she did that, she might catch a late entry.