Just because QIN and the Feds gp down a trail doesn't mean it's the right one. And, even if WDFW's reason for doing separation was not conservation that managing stocks separately is better than in aggregate. But, hell, what do I know.

Climate Change and all the stuff happening with the food supply in the ocean will solve the problem soon enough.

NOF, WDFW and QIN, need to be working with the same data. I am not a member of WDFW Grays Harbor task force which has set meetings to work on fisheries, both sport and NT commercial BUT I do go to most meetings and have for about 12 years. I have attended and given my 3' presentations to the Commission, mostly on the Wynoochee Mitigation monies getting spent.....finally there might be something done.....only took about 26 years to get this done.

Grays Harbor Management Plan is one of the best plans modeled to set Salmon seasons on the Chehalis and Humptulips in Washington State below is the web address:


https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/policies/grays-harbor-basin-salmon-management

The thing is that the separation was about harvest to be sure and the future of rec opportunity. As this unfolded in the 90's it was contentious with many groups within the Chehalis Basin but it was one particular exchange that I remember best. A gentlemen from Centralia was particularly adamant that this would result in the total loss of inland rec harvest. The then deputy director was totally exasperated and fired right back with this, " we are going to loose Puget Sound rec opportunity and we need someplace for those people to go" All these years later one thing stands out, everybody ended up being right. I do not think anyone involved believed WDFW could screw it up to the degree they have.

DW's comment is correct as the GH policy has worked far better than expected and the QIN have stayed mostly to the conservative side with harvest. Compared with Willapa where WDFW managed to devastate both rec & commercial fisheries I would say despite its short comings the GHMP works or the Chehalis Basin would resemble the shambles we see in Willapa.

Little edit: Loose rec fisheries in PS was in the context of fisheries that existed in the late 80's into the early 90's.

Well, now the recs can go to AK and BC, or Montana and Wyoming, as the opportunity in more than PS is gone.

Last I checked, the same leadership structure that manages WB also does for GH? Based on the WB experience, the only hope is that somebody can stop WDFW from working its angling opportunity elimination superpower. Its amazing to me that WDFW has not functionally eliminated the GH fishery already. The QIN must be a moderating influence on them.

The very big difference is that in WB the Agency answers to no "outside" folks. No ESA, no Tribes. WB is how WDFW believes anadromous fish stocks should be managed, how rec and commercial should be balanced, how hatcheries should be operated, and so on. GH has QIN. Guess the question to ask is whether you believe (from your perspective) which bay is better managed for your interests. If it happens to be GH, thank the QINs.

Hell CM it was TP for TU that went to QIN who forced WDFW to fully open the Chehalis for Rec fishers. Speaking of no other entity, the Nation has been a real asset in Grays Harbor or god knows what we would have left. They ain't perfect to be sure ( sturgeon comes to mind ) but compared to WDFW they are angels.

Well, yeah. WB is the best they can do? Wonder what would happen if some recs, say GH, went to QIN before NOF and worked with them instead of WDFW. Why not go to the boss, anyway?

If you recall years back at Bristol several groups said just that, the sucking sound damn near created a vacuum in that room!

Time to actually do it. They are kinda useless.

Working with some Tribes, especially terminal fishing tribes, could create an interesting NOF. Kind of a three-cornered negotiation. The State and their stakeholders who want everything in the Ocean/Straits, the extreme terminal Tribes and freshwater recs who want river fisheries, and the rest. From a conservation perspective of fishing on known stocks (not mixed), a re-organizing of the negotiation "teams" could get interesting.

I don't know how the Tribes would react if, within their ranks, the mixed stock and terminal tribes were (publicly) at odds. But, with the need to leave more fish out there for whales, the need to get more fish to the rivers, it might be a way out of the morass.

Clearly GH is the better managed system, not that it is a ringing endorsement of managment.

I guess the difference is the QIN involvement in GH and the fact that GH has actual chinook habitat in the basin.

I thought I would share this with folks frankly because while this is about the Columbia it is also about the disregard of Commission decisions by staff. For the purpose transparency Tim is my brother and helped me with salmon restoration in the Satsop for years and eventually became a Willapa Adviser and advocate for natural salmon populations.

Formatting is bit off guys but it was a PDF C&P which is a bit of a bitch to post up.



Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855
thfwa.org

August 25, 2020 via: email in PDF format
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98504

Re: Columbia River Basin Salmon Management Policy

Dear Commissioners:

The Advocacy believes it appropriate to look back in time to determine what happened to the fish in the Columbia when considering the best path forward. On Dec. 9, 1908 President Teddy
Roosevelt delivered his annual address to Congress and advocated removing the management of the Columbia back to the federal level. He explained his rationale with the following:

The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River are now but a fraction of what they were twenty-five years ago, and what they would be now if the United States Government had taken complete charge of them by intervening between Oregon and Washington. During these twenty-five years the fishermen of each State have naturally tried to take all they could get, and the two legislatures have never been able to agree on joint action of any kind adequate in degree for the protection of the fisheries. At the moment the fishing on the Oregon side is practically closed, while there is no limit on the Washington side of any kind, and no one can tell what the courts will decide as to the very statutes under which this action and non-action result. Meanwhile very few salmon reach the spawning grounds, and probably four years hence the fisheries will amount to nothing; and this comes from a struggle between the associated, or gill-net, fishermen on the one hand, and the owners of the fishing wheels up the river.

At the time he spoke, no dams existed in the Columbia Basin. Aberdeen was the largest city in the state with a population around 40,000. Large portions of the state contained vast old growth
forests. Recreational fishing was nearly non-existant and the excessive harvest came exclusively from a commercial industry revolving around canneries that could ship the harvest out of the
region via newly completed rail roads. Since the fishers supplying the canneries reimbursed the public nearly zero for the fish they landed, canned springer Chinook was selling in New York as a “poor man’s protein” at half the price of canned chicken. To keep this price advantage, the commercial fishers turned to the state to produce fish out of hatcheries as a means to continue the public subsidy (free fish) the industry was reliant upon.

Fast forward. The general public poured hundreds of millions of dollars into hatchery production. WDFW encourage recreational fishing as a means to increase funding for the Department.
At the same time, those citizens who lived up stream watched as the flow of fish arriving inland declined year after year. Recreational license holders who fished locally found themselves relying upon traveling down to the lower stretches to catch salmon. Those who didn’t fish and received their value from experiencing the salmon spawning near their home witnessed stream after stream go barren.
Then we enter the time period after the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Natural spawning salmon and steelhead were granted ESA protection that required the rebuilding of the natural spawners. Hundreds of millions in tax dollars were brought to bear. Citizens living upstream were additionally severely impacted financially by the loss of timber harvest, irrigation capacity, subdivision opportunities, high cost sewage treatment improvements, etc. The result is those living upstream were being required to pay billions out of their pockets and businesses to supposedly restore the salmon. WDFW focused its attention on protected fishing opportunities on the open ocean to just inside the bars as little if any recovery occurred. To our knowledge, every stock that went on the ESA endangered species list remained on the list.

The Chinook River Basin Salmon Management Plan was passed in 2013 after an intense and controversial public debate over salmon management in the Columbia. At that time, many thought a means forward to recovery with fairness to all would be the outcome. Instead, turnover of members of the Commission stopped implementation and today the Policy is once again fueling public controversy over yet another proposal to increase commercial gillnet opportunities in the lower Columbia.

One of the key components of the Policy was a “buy back” provision wherein public funds would be used to purchase Columbia/Willapa and Columbia/Grays Harbor Commercial Gillnet licenses. The Department delayed development of a program for years. When Commissioner(s) finally grew impatient, the Department was directed to deliver a draft program during the next meeting of the Commission.

Advocacy President Tim Hamilton had researched previous buy back programs that followed the Boldt decision. He offered to share with the Department his research and knowledge of small business principals attained during his 35 year long career as the Executive Director of a statewide trade association of small business interests (motor fuel marketers). The Department accepted and he met in Olympia with management. It was clear to the Advocacy that after all these years the Department had not invested any significant effort into producing a plan for consideration by the Commission. Surprised by this, Mr. Hamilton mentioned the language in the Policy on a buy back provision and requests for production during the last
Commission meeting as the reason for his offer. WDFW Region 5 head Ron Roller responded with “Those gillnets aren’t going anywhere”. Hamilton responded with “But the Policy says.....”. He came back again with “Those gillnets aren’t going anywhere.”

The Advocacy came away from the meeting convinced the Department management had not in the past, and would unlikely in the future feel duty bound to honor a Policy passed by the Commission in concert with the public. Same goes for a request for work product from a Commisioner - Page 2, Columbia River Policy Page 3, Columbia River Policy unless the request provides an opportunity for the Department to promote an action item it
desires without disclosing it’s role to the public. As President Roosevelt stated, “ ..... the two legislatures have never been able to agree on joint action of any kind adequate in degree for the protection of the fisheries.” Recognizing the political polarization that was adversely effecting the resources, the citizens of Washington likewise decided intervention was required. In 1994, legislative management was replaced by a nine member Fish & Wildlife Commission. Salaries were set at a minuscule level to insure applicants were motivated by a desire to serve the people rather than an opportunity to receive personal remuneration. While all nine were expected to serve the interests of all the citizens, the state
was divided regionally to insure regional fairness.

The recent actions to modify the Policy by increasing commercial harvest is telling when considering whether the formation of a Commission actually rose to expectations of the supporters of the ballot measure. While one can accept certain members of the Commission may be sympathetic to the gillnet license holders, the Commission formation was designed to insure fairness for all the citizens not just the few who have political support. Since over 90% of the state’s citizens do not fish with either a net or a pole, which of you today will stand up for their rights? Are the people who reside in the Columbia Basin not entitled to see recovery and witness spawning salmon in their local streams? Is it fair to those who recreationally fish that they be required to drive to the coast? Is it fair to ask the taxpayers to continue to provide millions in subsidies that deliveries the equivalent of a typical monthly truck payment to the 100 or so to holder’s of a commercial gillnet license? Is it appropriate that these license holders pay less for the fish they catch than the public spends to have images of salmon spray painted on storm water drain lids?
Is it not understandable why so many who have dealt with the Department over the years believe WDFW is a walking talking poster child for the political slogan “Drain the swamp?”

The unfair treatment of the citizens living upstream is not isolated to just the Columbia Basin. The Chehalis River is the second largest stream in the state and once again, the harvest is set for the benefit of commercial interests on the ocean and lower stretches of the river. Just like in the Columbia, many of those residing upstream feel they are being treated like share-croppers rather than stakeholders.
One example of the Department’s attitude toward those who live upstream came across in a phone call over a decade ago between former WDFW Director Phil Anderson and later to become Advocacy Member Ron Schweitzer. A long time recreational fisher who dedicated a significant effort to help locals improve and restore fish runs in the Chehalis Basin, Ron called Anderson to explain he was on the water today and could not find any salmon in the river. Anderson’s response was telling. He advised Ron that if he wanted to catch a salmon he needed to go out on a charter boat out of Westport. Ron responded by reminding Mr. Anderson of his historical financial interests in charter boats and the call abruptly ended.

Returning back to the Columbia, retirees of WDFW shared a similar experience when they expressed a concern that an action proposed by the Department could adversely effect trout fishing Page 4, Columbia River Policy in streams that was important culturally and economically to those who live in the Basin. They state the response from upper management that locals who wanted to fish could drive down and fish for salmon at Buoy 10 in the mouth of the Columbia.
The members of the Advocacy request each member of the Commission to ask themselves who would benefit if the latest effort to increase commercial harvest in the lower Columbia is successful?
How much could each gillnet license holder expect to receive in the pocket book? Is a vote in favor of the proposal in the best interest of the taxpayers across the state? Is passage an action that a reasonable person could view as respectful to those who reside in the Columbia Basin? How would such a move improve the chances of restoring salmon runs and getting Columbia stocks off the ESA list?

In the commentary prior to the vote, we hope each Commissioner will share his/her on these with the public. You might also take the opportunity to answer the question we get asked all time.
“Does the Commissioners work for the Director of WDFW or does the Director work for the Commission?”

Recognizing the responsibilities of the Commission is especially crucial at this point. The Advocacy fully understands the large and complex task facing members of the Commission. We recognize
that the statue creating the Commission provided the ability to delegate powers down to the Director. However, the statute does not relieve the Commission from its responsibilities upon delegation and further more, the Department would simply ignore it anyway. Whether we like it or not, “The buck stops” on each of your’s desk and the Commission is responsible for oversight of the Department and its staff.

In closing, the three of us live in Grays Harbor. If the Advocacy members were to take a position in favor of such a measure in the Chehalis River, we would expect our neighbors and friends that found out about it would demand to see “For Sale Signs in our front yards.” Our only way out would be if they didn’t know what had been done to them or couldn’t figure out who did it to them. Course, that protection would dissipate every morning when we looked into the mirror to brush our teeth as we would know it even if the public didn’t.

For whatever it’s worth.

Tim Hamilton President
Art Holman Vice-President
Ron Schweitzer Secretary/Treasurer

This is a heads up for those of you that run the tidal water stretch below South Monte. Mid channel at the North end of Sand island we have a really ugly dead head. It only shows about half way on the outgoing to low tide and it does not show above half tide to high tide. Nice little jewel that is barely visible much of the time so be aware and track wide to the bank away from the island.

It must be solid as I watched a boat hit it that was bounced up and about two feet sideways. Nobody was hurt but that boat has got to have one he-- of a dent in it. Saving grace was they were not going that fast out for a ride and everybody was seated.

I have been told that Bob Lake has passed. For those who did not know Bob he was a Grays Harbor and Willapa gillnetter to the core. Having been on the opposing side of issues from Bob many times I can say with certainty that his passion for fish issues was undeniable. He believed in his positions and was an tenacious advocate for causes he believed in. In the world we live in today that is something that is often lacking in many on all sides of fishing issues but not Bob. So god speed Bob, I think you did right by your beliefs and those you had the honor to represent.

Thanks for the news. I first met and worked with Bob when we did one of the very first carcass distribution projects in the state.

I copied this from my post on the Satsop River.....affects the Chehalis from Satsop to Montesano boat launch...

9/10/2020

Thought I'd give a short report on the Chehalis below the Satsop. Many know I like to fish Coho jacks, have done so in the Chehalis River for a looooong time.

This year, because of low water conditions, I've been running up-river from the Montesano boat launch. There is a major river change about 1/4 mile up river from the launch, right across from the mill, he main river has cut though, when you get pass the "cut" stay to your right.

Not a lot of change up to the pump houses, just a few trees hung up in the river. If you are running "low water", then conditions change...gravel bars have gotten larger .

Major change is in a area called Tidwells, down river from the Satsop, I've fished this area for 40+ years.....lots of "stuff" got pushed down from the Satsop last winter.....logs where there were no logs and the gravel bar build up "on the North side of the river is major.

I've not been from Fuller Bridge down to Tidwells, so I can't speak to that area but it would be a challenge going down the "skinny water", below Tidwells, at this time....in a jet boat.

Be safe both on the water and personal life.....

Well this is interesting! Put the gillnetters in U and blew the model apart!

Morning Willapa Bay Advisors,
Just wanted to give everyone a quick update on commercial fisheries in Willapa Bay. Regional staff are currently working on this week’s fishery update and hope to have that out to everyone later today. Commercial fisheries began in the bay on Tuesday in commercial catch area 2U. Effort was consistent with what we have historically seen in tangle net fisheries in recent years. Both Chinook and coho encounters were higher than predicted preseason. Yesterday, commercial catch area 2N was open utilizing tangle net gear. As mentioned above, staff are still working through the data but what we do know as of this morning is that effort was low, and catch was also low. So, what does this mean and where do we stand.

After the two combined days of commercial fishing the estimate of natural origin Chinook impacts stands at 100 fish. This would represent a 400% increase relative to the weekly preseason prediction of 25 fish and is 69% of the total allowable impacts (144 fish) for the season in order to achieve the 14% impact rate cap on natural origin Willapa River and Naselle River Chinook management objective. The estimated catch of natural origin coho was 180 fish. This is 158% of the preseason prediction for the week of 114 natural origin coho harvested.

Based on preseason predictions and uncertainty around runsize updates in-season, a modification of the commercial fishery is necessary to help ensure that conservation objectives for Chinook and coho are met. Commercial fisheries planned for Friday in commercial catch area 2T and the opener on Monday the 14th in commercial catch area 2T, 2U, 2N, and 2M will also be closed. The next scheduled commercial fishery is scheduled for Thursday, September 17. This fishery was planned preseason to utilize small mesh gill net but will be modified to a tangle net fishery. As mentioned above the weekly fishery update will include more detailed information relative to fisheries performance and will be sent out later today.
Thanks,

Chad Herring
Anadromous Resource Policy Analyst
Montesano Regional Headquarters

Following up with this from Barbara. To boil this down to bare bones. The run is twice or three times forecast, the run is early not by calendar but by % arriving by week ( doubt the first second is likely ) or Chad could not manage a to make it to the toilet without a map that glows in the dark. Frankly I am running with the last one.


Hi Everyone,
This email is to provide you a weekly in-season update on the Willapa Bay marine area 2.1 recreational fishery from August 31 – September 6, 2020 (management week 36) as well as other fishery related information currently happening in Willapa Bay.

Recreational Marine Fishery
Since our last update, we had a good week of fishing in Willapa Bay but slightly down from the previous week in terms of effort. Considering last week included the Labor Day holiday, the level of effort was expected. The best day of fishing was Saturday, September 5, for both effort and catch. Overall, hatchery Chinook catch declined by 59% compared to the previous week but coho catch increased over 200% from the previous week. The number of unmarked Chinook released also declined for the week. The tides were not the best during this management week as there was only one high tide and it was in the afternoon with warm weather. It was also a larger tidal exchange than what is preferred for fishing in Willapa Bay. Effort is likely to decline even more this week and through the weekend.
(See attachment; 2020 WB Marine Area Recreational Data & Catch Estimate Summary Draft week 36 09.10.2020.pdf).

The boat survey work we have been conducting since August 1 is still showing 96.3% of the boats fishing this year in the Willapa Bay marine area 2.1 are exiting the fishery either in Tokeland or South Bend. There is no change in this rate compared to last week. These are the locations where we have staff dockside monitoring four days a week.

Hatchery Chinook Rack Returns
Naselle Hatchery:
We had an influx of Chinook into the attraction channel over the last few days. To-date, there are a total of 604 hatchery Chinook (576 adults and 28 jacks) that have volunteered into the attraction channel and recruited into the hatchery. Of those, 32 were natural Chinook fish. All natural fish were passed upstream above the weir. We have had 41 hatchery Chinook die since recruiting into the hatchery. None of the mortalities were natural Chinook. We will begin Chinook spawning at the hatcheries probably after next week. (See attachment; Naselle Hatchery Adult CHK Summary 09.10.2020.pdf).

Nemah Hatchery:
To-date, no Chinook have recruited into the hatchery.

Spawning Ground Surveys
We have been conducting weekly index surveys in the Nemah and Naselle rivers since the beginning of August. We have several hundred Chinook staging in the Naselle River below the weir but to-date have not found any redds. We have found our first Chinook redd of the season in the Nemah River this week. Lower South Fork Willapa River has Chinook in the river but at this point they are just staging in deep pools.

Commercial Fishery
The commercial fishery started fishing this week. There was one day scheduled Tuesday, Sept. 8 in area 2U and one day scheduled yesterday, Sept. 9 in area 2N. Both days of fishing required the use of tangle net gear. Effort for the first day in 2U was consistent with what we have historically seen in tangle net fisheries in recent years. However, the effort in the 2N fishery was below expectations. Chinook and coho encounters were much higher than predicted preseason. After two days of fishing, the estimate of natural origin Chinook impacts is 100 fish. The total allowable natural origin Chinook impacts for the season is 144 fish. The estimated catch of natural origin coho was 180 fish . This is 158% of the 114 natural origin coho predicted for the week. (See attachment: 2020 WB impacts by area total catch summary Draft week 37 09.10.2020(2).pdf)

Based on the preseason predictions and uncertainty around runsize updates in-season, a modification of the commercial fishery is necessary to help ensure that conservation objectives for Chinook and coho are met. The commercial fishery planned for tomorrow in area 2T and the opener scheduled Monday, Sept 14, in commercial catch areas 2N, 2M, 2U, and 2T will be closed via emergency regulation. The next scheduled fishing day is Thursday, Sept 17 and this fishery was planned preseason to utilize small mesh gillnet gear. However, a change will be made via emergency regulation for this opener modifying the small mesh gear to a tangle net fishery instead. We will evaluate all of the data after next Thursday to determine where we stand and will continue to monitor the fishery each day it is open.

As always, in-season data is preliminary and subject to change. This email and any attachments will be posted to our website using the link provided below for the Willapa Bay Marine Area 2.1 Recreational Creel Monitoring.

If you have any comments or questions regarding any of the information provided in these emails, please submit your comments to WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov.

Additionally, if you know of anyone who might be interested in receiving these weekly in-season updates or any other information we may send out regarding Willapa Bay fisheries, please forward this email and have them reply stating they would like to be added to our email distribution list.

Thank you and Happy Fishing!
Barbara McClellan
Willapa Bay Fisheries Management
WDFW Region 6 Montesano

Well folks I thought I would share something with you all. Chehalis Jack fishing early on was OK to good and not many adults. Then this somewhere around the 9th or 10th I encountered substantial numbers of adults moving through tidewater, mostly Coho and a lot of jacks. So being the fishing wizard I am ( not ) I just pulled up stakes and headed back upstream and plowed right into this. From Preachers to somewhere near Friends Landing the river was fish everywhere, jumping. From the 10th to today the river has been a zoo with fish packed into the river. Meanwhile Jack fishing in the skinny water above South Monte went off the charts but still not many adults.

The first couple of days it was mostly Coho ( with just a huge number of jacks ) then the mix added Chinook. The last two days it seems like more Chinook piled in as I simply had encounters go off the map. Today I am around the house and fewer fish jumping but a bunch of Chinook in numbers I have not seen for a bit. I was simply fishing off the dock and hooked several and strangest of all would have two’s three’s and one time four follow my spinner to the dock. I have seen this in Coho but never in Chinook and especially cast after cast.

So my guess as to what is going on, no idea. It appears that the early September adults stayed in the bay until moving up and parking. Coho adults ranged from scales not set and lice to silver and pink bellies right out of the bay! The Coho Jacks are awesome! I mean average 16 to 18 inches with football bellies and damn near obese! The Chinook are in great shape and right down to fat ranging from bronzed and slimed up ( coming out of the bay ? ) These are some healthy fish folks and mean. They are also very early for this number to show. It appears the fish stayed put in the bay for early September and fish normally moving upstream in late September and early October decided to move in mass early but only into tide water below South Monte.

So after the next two weeks East County guys should have one bunch of fish as I have to believe this mob is going to move up.

Little edit: I wrote this mid morning. As the day wore the jumping decreased to say mid October level. Did they move? No idea have to wait for another update.