The prior post is self explanatory but if one ever wanted a break out of how & what the turmoil in WDF&W Enforcement has been this should take care of that problem in short order. This is relevant to the current mess in Grays Harbor and Willapa as the lack of honesty and conservation ethics exhibited by District 17 ( GH & Willapa ) staff will not change until we have a different Director. The current WDF&W Director is 100% old school and those who hope for some form of enlightened management are going to have to wait until there is a change at the top.

If what the letter says is true, then many more than just the head need removal.

Wow..... Really sad that it took a retired game warden getting fed up to dig this up.

WDFW Enforcement went through a pretty extensive and expensive certification program a while back. If memory serves, they are one of the few LE agencies in WA that achieved that. Might be better to forward the information to them rather than the Press because the certifiers can actually take a public/professional action if warranted.

CM -
Are you referring to CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for law enforcement agencies) accreditation the WDFW enforcement received a decade or so ago?

That accreditation meant that the agency had met some pretty serious communication and training standards. If only part of the claims in that letter are true it is obvious that meeting those standards was largely a expensive "paper" exercise. Though at the time the enforcement leadership made a big deal of getting that accreditation.

While I don't recall what the cost was to go through that accreditation process I do recall that in a time of tight budgets it was pretty controversial at the time when the agency did it. Again as I recall most of the national fish and wild agencies as well as most Washington County Sherriff departments have not gone through that process and some folks wondered whether that money would have been better spend on keeping agents in the field.

Curt

That's what I was talking about. It was also pretty costly because of the remodeling needed to do in their HQ.

Remember, too, one of Murphy's Laws. An ounce of Image is worth a pound of Performance.

This came in my e mail so I thought I would post it. Not for our reading benefit but for the gentleman that wrote the letter to the Commission that I posted previously. One never knows about letters that harsh but it seemed authentic and had the proper bells and whistles. What I did not know was the fact that this is coming from the ONLY 2 time OFFICER OF THE YEAR for WDFW. The loyalty the former employees have is often difficult to grasp but I think if this gentlemen is who the e mailer says he is then I am going with someone who is fighting FOR the agencies credibility which under Mr. Anderson has reached the level of about ZERO / to NONE!

I question many things I see on the net, so contacted a good friend of mine that is also retired WDFW enforcement.

He knows this writer well & says that the writer is meticulus enough that he would never write anything that he can not back up. He says the writer only sees things in black & white, with no gray areas. And if you buy the book, you will not be able to put it down.

Now this is a beauty!!!! This is a attorney for the Willapa Gillnetters trying to intimidate WDF&W with findings from a bio they hired. Now the consultants report is 13 pages long so I will put it up in two or three parts later. That said this is interesting reading as ........................ oh hell I do not know but trying to intimidate a government agency is not such a good idea!!!!!!!! I did not fix the formatting as this is exactly as received but converted from a PDF to Word.


Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Attn: Joanna Eide, WDFW Rules Coordinator 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 rules.coordinator@dfw. wagov

RE: Comments to CR'102
WAC 220-40-021- Willapa Bay salmon summer fishery WAC 220-40-026)- Willapa Bay salmon fall fishery

Dear Ms. Eide:

The undersigned and this law firm represent the Willapa Bay and Gr.ays Ha.rbor Gillnetters Associations ("Associations"). The following are the Associations' comments to CR 102 draft
regulations for the Willapa Bay sahnon sununer fishery and Willapa Bay salmon fall fishery promulgated under WAC 220-40-021 and WAC 220-40-027, respectively.

BACKGROUND

In January 2014 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ("WDFW''), Tim Hamilton, Arthur Hohnan, and Ron Schweitzer settled litigation under Thurston County cause nos. 13-2-01741- 2 and 13-202050-2 ("Settlement Agreement"). Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a. copy of the Settlement Agreement. The Associations did not have an opportunity to participate in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement requires the WDFW to procure consulting services from independent fishery scientists. The scientists and their scope of work were jointly selected by the parties to the Settlement Agreement and the WDFW. The Associations did not have the opportunity to participate in this process.

The WDFW further agreed to use public funds to establish a private non-profit organization. The organization is intended to promote recreational fishing in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor. The organization is called the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy ("Advocacy"). The officers of the Advocacy are Tim Hamilton, Arthur Hohnan, and Ron Schweitzer. Itisunclear how the public funds were used by the Advocacy or its officers. The Associations have never received similar funds.

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W •

June 24, 2014
Page 2


A Professional Services Corporation



The.scientists engaged by the WDFW and the Advocacy convened a panel identified as the Independent Fisheries Science Panel ("IFSP"). On.March 31, 2014, the IFSP produced the Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Commercial Salmon Fisheries Mortality Rates ("IFSP Report"). The IFSP was requested to address only the following issues:(1) Chinook and chum salmon release mortality rates for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor with fishermen complying with the regulations; (2) Chinook and chum salmon release mortality rates for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor in light of actual fishing practices; and (3) identifying compliance problems with fish-friendly tactics. The issues posed to the IFSP also appear to have been created by the Advocacy. The Associations again did not have the opportunity to participate in the IFSP's formulation of its scope of work and they did not receive any meaningful opportunity to comment on the IFSP's draft report.

On May 21, 2014, the WDFW issued CR-102 filed as WSR 14-11-105 for the 2014 North of Falcon commercial salmori rules for Willapa Bay. On June 23, 2014, Ian Courter of Mount Hood
.Environmental prepared a Teehnical Memorandl.}!Il which consists of a Review of the IFSP Recommendations and the 2014 Proposed Rules for Willapa Bay Commercial Salmon Fishing. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B'' is a copy of the Technical Memorandum. Mr. Courter observes that release mortality rates for naturally spawning chinook are one of the most significant factors impacting the 2014 commercial gillnet season. (Technical Memorandum, p. 3). Regarding the mortality rates,Mr. Courter finds that "[i]t appearsthat the WDFW used the IFSP Report exclusively to arrive at these figures." (Technical Memorandum, p. 3). As a result, the WDFW's Willapa Bay rule-making process for 2014 suffers from the e flaws as the IFSP Report discussed in the Technical Memorandum.

ANALYSIS

The statutory mandate for the WDFW state5 as follows:

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair th resource. Ina manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing inthis state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times orplaces, or inmanners or quantities, as inthejudgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

RCW 77.04;012. To further these broad objectives, the Legislature directed that "[t]he commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making." RCW 77.04.013.

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24, 2014
Page 3


A Professional Services Corporation



These objectives grant the WDFW regulatory authority to manage fish within the waters of
this state for purposes of conservation. Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n v. State, 92 Wn. App.381, 391, 966 P.2d 928 (1998);see also Northwest Gillnetters Ass'n v.Sandison, 95 Wn.2d 638, 641, 628
P.2d 800 (1981). In order to manage a fishery for conservation, WDFW is permitted to do the following:

[i]t •enables the agency to collect data regarding the size, plaeement, and harvest of runs, to regulate the type of gear and times at which it can be employed in fishing specific varieties and runs •of fish, to discriminate among classes of users by gear and purpose, to artificially enhance the fishery through hatchery programs, and even to force the owners of existing dams to improve fish passage facilities.

Northwest Gillnetters Ass'n v. Sandison, 95 Wn. 2d 638, 641-642, 628 P.2d 800 (1981).

The grant of broad discretion to an agency includes the corresponding obligation to take actions that are not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). Arbitrary aild capricious is defined as follows:

Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of facts and circwnstances. Where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary and capricious even though one may believe an erroneous conclusion has been reached.

Pierce County Sheriff v. Civil Service Com'n of Pierce Cowtty, 98 Wn.2d 690, 695, 658 P.2d 648 (1983) (quoting State v.Rowe, 93 Wn.2d 277, 284, 609 P.2d 1348 (1980).

Based on the above analysis and the Technical Memorandum, the WDFW has failed to discharge its statutory mandate and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

A. The WDFW violated its statutory mandate and the APA by failing to treat the Advocacy and the Associations equally in the IFSP process without adequate justification .

The statute states:

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. Ina manner oonsistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well..being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shallpromote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

RCW 77.()4.012. In accord with this statute, the WDFW •must balance both commercial and
_recreational interests. Puget Sound Crab Ass'n v. State, 174 Wn. App. 572, 581-582, 300 P.3d 448

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24,2014
Page 4


AProfessional Services Cocporation



(2013). The WDFW must also treat both the commercial and recreational industries equally. Id. at
584. The WDFW may onlytreat the groups differently if it has an adequate explanation on the record. The failure to treat two similarly situated groups equally without adequate explanation is arbitrary under the AP. Petroleum Communications. Inc. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne, 452 F.Supp.2d 105, 115 (2006).

• The commercial industry and recreational industry were not treated equally here and the WDFW lacks any justification for such disparate treatment during its rule-making process. Rather, the Settlement Agreement and the IFSP process, at the expense of public funds, provided the Advocacy access to agency rul(}-making to the exclusion of the Associations. Such an exclusive practice reSulted in disparate treatment of two similarly situated groups - the Advocacy and• the
Associations. Disparate treatment violates the WDFW's mandate and it violates the APA because there is no basis to treat the groups differently during a process intended to encourage public
involvement. The WDFW has not only failed to encourage the Associations' involvement inthe IFSP process, it excluded the Association8 by agreemen with the Advocacy. Accordingly, the WDFW caruiot adopt the IFSP's conclusions without adequate justification for treating the Advocacy and Associations differently during the IFSP process. The IFSP Report must be excluded from the WDFW rule- making process on this basis alone. •

B. The application of a 10% actual practices adjustment to naturally spawning release mortality rates is arbitrary and capricious because it is not supported by any reliable data and it is contrary to the on-board observer data collected by the WDFW.

The IFSP concludes that release mortality rates will be higher in actual practice due to the failure of the commercial fleet to comply with fish friendly tactics. To support this conclusion, the IFSP relied upon unqualified lay opinion testimony and video presented at workshops. This evidence lacks any credibility and is directly contrary to the WDFW on-boat observer data collected during the gillnet seasons.

Further, Mr. Courter finds that the application of a noncompliance rate is subjective, lacks empirical .evidence, and is duplicative of factors already included in the FRAM model. (Technical Memorandum, p. 6). The WDFW's decision to apply the IFSP's 10% adjustment renders the WDFW's action similarly subjective, duplicative, and arbitrary.

To consider information that lacks any indicia of reliability or credibility which is contrary to actual data in the WDFW's possession disregards the facts and circumstances available to the IFSP, it lacks any rational support, and it duplicates a factor Blready included in the model. A final rulethat relies solely upon the IFSP Report and disregards the attending facts and circumstances is arbitrary and capricious Puget Sound Harvesters Ass'n v. Washington State Dept.. of Fish and Wildlife, 157 Wn.App.935, 945, 239 P.3d 1140 (2010). Accordingly the non-compliance rate adjustment must be removed and the mortality rates adjusted accordingly.,

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24, 2014
Page 5


A Professional Services Corporation






C. There is no data_ to su1mort a drop-out mortality rates of 3% for commercial fisheries.

Based on the information available from WDFW, there isno empirical data.to support a drop­ out rate for Willapa Bay commercial gillnetters. It apPears, based upon the _available infoation from the WDFW, that the WDFW and tribal co-managers have agreed upon these rates, but the WDFW has no data to support the conclusion that such rates pccur in actual practices. Mr. Courter finds that the drop-out rates arenot based on objective data and redundant. (Technical Memorandwn,
p. 7). Accordingly, the drop-out rates must be removed and the mortality rates adjusted accordingly.

D. The application of spring Chinook test fishery data from the Colwnbia River must be adjusted to reflect the time frame and migration distance expected inWillapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Tl1e IFSP report finds that data from Ashbrook et al. (2004) does not need to be altered because mortality of spring Chinook in the Colwnbia River did not differ substantially between trea1ment and control fish upstream ofthe McNary Dam. Grays Harbor and the Willapa Bay fall runs are materially different than the Colwnbia River spring run. The Columbia River fishery has significantly lower long-term survival rates and higher corresponding mortality rates because of the presence of hydroelectric dams, the significant distance traveled by returning fish before reaching spawning grounds, and the significant time in fresh water before spawning.

Mr. Courter also disagrees with the IFSP' s :findings because there is affirmative data to dispute the IFSP'sunsupported conclusions. The IFSP Report appears to concede that it made an affirmative conclusion based upon a perceived lack of evidence. An affirmative conclusion based upon the lack of evidence here is inappropriate because of the material differences between the fishenes. Mr. Courter sites VanderHaegen, G.E.et al (2004) and Ashbrook et al. (2009) forthe conclusion that there are significant capture-related mortality occurring upstream of McNary Dam on the Colwnbia River. (Technical Mernorandwn, p. 8-9). Therefore, distance of travel distinguishes the Columbia River spring runs and Willapa Bay fall runs.

Moreover, the U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") reached a similar conclusion to Mr. Courter by applyiri.g a 4()0/o long term release mortality rate •to Columbia River Chinook based on "study design biases" inAshbrook et al. (2004). (Technical Memorandwn, p. 9). The IFSP's analysis is clearly inconsistent with the Technical Memorandum and the TAC despite reviewing the exact same data.

The IFSP and subsequently the WDFW are disregarding the attending facts and circwnstances available to adequately inform the 2014 rule-making process. A final rule based solely upon the IFSP Report that disregards the actual facts and circumstances is arbitrary and capricious. Puget Sound Harvesters Ass'n v. Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 157 Wn. App. 935, 945, 239 P.3d 1140 (2010). .

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24, 2014
Page 6


A Professional Sices Corporation




The WDFW must develop a scalar to adjust the mortality rates accordingto actual Willapa Bay conditions and the study • design biases observed in Ashbrook et al (2004). . (Technical Memorandwn; p. 13). Without adequate adjustment, the WDFW's rule .disregards the weight of available scientific evidence on this issue.

E. The imposition of tangle nets on Willapa Bay fails to consider the economic impact on the commercial industry.

The WDFW's statutory mandate requires it to consider the economic burden ofits regulations on the fishing industry. Puget Sound Crab Ass'n v. . State, 174 Wn. App. 572, 581-582, 300 P.3d 448 (2013). The imposition of tangle nets on Willapa Bay, only a few months before the season commences, fails to.account for the economic impact of such a change on the commercial industry. Itis impossibleto purchase atangle net in time forthe2014 summer and fall Willapa Bay commercial salmon season. Manufacturers are not capable of filling orders for tangle nets in the allowed time frame. As a result, the economic burden will be significant as the commercial industry will not be permitted to fish as a result of this change in equipment. e Associations request the WDFW to delay the imposition of tangle nets in order to provide the Associations a commercially reasonable time to acquire the new gear.

CONCLUSION

The Associations request that the WDFW disregard the IFSP's Report. The Associations request that naturally spawning chinook mortality rates be adjusted according to the Technical Memorandum 's recommendations. The Associations request that the WDFW promulgate a regulation for the 2014 commercial gillnet season in Willapa Bay that complies with RCW 77.04 and RCW 34.05.

Sincerely,



.GOOwffi

cc: Clients
Mike Grossman, Washington Attorney General's Office

We are still working on Public Document Request and here comes this gem. Key is to read bottom up as it is the Director starting the thread. Now let us say this right now absolutely ZERO misconduct is present here. It is appropriate for any citizen to contact their elected representative and request assistance but I think this takes Rep. Blake out of the even handed approach column. You choose!!!!


From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW) Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:38 PM To: Anderson, Philip M (DFW)
Cc: Warren, Ron R (DFW); Scott, James B (DFW)
Subject: RE: willapa/Blake



Attached are the other 2 items we handed out. DraftResponse is the preliminary recommendation from the Independent Fishery Scientist Panel on gillnet release mortality rates for Chinook. The other two are the Chinook and Coho FRAM mortality rates used by state/tribal/PFMC modelers. Net drop out would be represented by “Other Mortality”.



Concerns expressed by the commercial industry that I noted (it may not be all of them):

1. The drop out rate used was not based on a study of commercial fisheries in Willapa Bay and their fisheries are now very different than other areas such as Puget Sound. Differences such as soak time need to be considered.

2. The IFSP was not an independent committee. They specifically cited that one member fishes with Jim Martin often and Martin’s son is married to Liz Hamilton or her daughter.

3. They want money from the agency to conduct an independent review of hooking mortality.

4. With regard to the 20% limitation: they told us the Naselle couldn’t support the goal when the management plan was drafted; none of the Chinook in Willapa are wild anymore; NFMS has said they wouldn’t list Willapa Chinook under ESA; and we need to go back to managing only for hatchery fish.

5. If part of the bay is closed to commercial, it needs to be closed to recreational also.



Please let me know if there are other items you need prior to Tuesday morning.



From: Anderson, Philip M (DFW)
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:01 PM
To: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW); Scott, James B (DFW)
Subject: willapa/Blake

All:

Got a message from Brain today. He said his phoning was ringing off the hook about Willapa, I assume that was generated from the meeting Friday night. He requested a breakfast meeting with me soon. If you happen to see this e-mail and have an electronic copy of any hand-outs that were used Friday night or the three pieces we referenced on Friday that you could send to me, that would be great. thanks, Phil

The Willapa Commercials Consultant report was a bit large and simply did not take to C&P as the formatting really took a hike! So here are his recommendations such as they are but keep in mind he was hired by a user group to develop a supporting document for the Willapa Gillnettters and NOT as the IFSP that the Commercials ( and District 17 staff ) hate. The IFSP were hired by Jim Scott ( AD Fish Program ) charged with working INDEPENDENTLY to develop mortality rates in fisheries for Grays Harbor and Willapa. Rec hooking mortality went up as did the commercial release mortality but the Gillnetters who have never been held accountable ( particulary by District 17 staff WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO BE MONITORING COMMERCIAL FISHINGS ) and it appears the guys are having problems with the concept that " it ain't OK to cook the books"!



This is my personal favorite. The Commercial Fleet take over 85% of the harvest in Willapa and this guy wants justification for the 15% or less the Recs get? " You got to be kidding me" is about the nicest way to respond to that with "Your shi--- me" closing in for the lead.


So here you are:


Recommendation Summary

list of primary recommendations in order of priority:

l) The Department should not use the IFSP to address noncompliance with regulations, and the noncompliance rate adjustment should be removed because it has no empirical basis. Moreover, a subjective noncompliance rate has already been applied to FRAM harvest rate estimates and inclusion of the same rate in the planning model would be redundant.

2) The Department should remove drop-out/off mortality rates from the Willapa Bay planning model because they have no empirical basis and subjective rates have already been incorporated into FRAM harvest rate estimates. WDFW should also develop a study plan to inform true estimates of drop-out and drop-off mortality.

3) The assumed post-release mortality rate for large and small mesh sizes should not exceed the rate agreed to by the TAC (40%) to account for bias in study results reported in Ashbrook et al. (2004). Furthermore, The number of factors affecting prespawning mortality increases with migration distance and time; therefore, additional reductions in assumed non-retention mortality must be made to account for life-history differences between spring and fall Chinook salmon.

4) WDFW should provide a clear explanation of the need to reduce the harvest impact on natural origin Naselle River Chinook salmon before finalizing rules for the 2014 commercial season.

5) To facilitate the comment/review process, justification for model structure and inputs should be compiled into a single report rather than relying on reviewers to compile numerous memos, reports, and public meeting synopses.

6) The Department should build upon and/or modify my explanation as needed to develop an accurate reflection of how the proposed fishery differs from previous seasons.

7) The Department should provide hind-cast estimates of the commercial fishery length (days) for the last l0 years under the new management regime proposed for 2014.

8) Efforts should be made to collect species-specific data to improve the accuracy of chum salmon non-retention mortality estimates.

9) The Department should provide the commercial fishing fleet with information pertaining to the need/justification for a 4% increase in the recreat ional fishing harvest allocation.

4. With regard to the 20% limitation: they told us the Naselle could’t support the goal when the management plan was drafted; none of the Chinook in Willa pa are wild anymore; NF MS has said they would’t list Willa pa Chinook under ESAU; and we need to go back to managing only for hatchery fish

after reading the statement that there are no wild Chinook left in the willapa I remembered reading in the vidette that in the 1890's the canneries on Gray's harbor planted "blacks" from the Sacramento river to have an early run king in the Chehalis to can. so does this mean that there are no native early run kings in the chehalis

Link is to SASI and look to North River/ Smith CR. The assertion by the gillnetters and some Rec fishers fearful of managing for a wild native fish, none exist in Willapa is BS. Willapa has issues of a total management failure and it is coming home to roost.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisherie...orderby=Species

Riverguy-

With the mass marking of the Chinook hatchery production through out the Willapa Bay basin I would be very interesting to see what information is available on the mark rate of Chinook carcasses recovered in the North River/Smith Creek (elsewhere in the basin).

Collection of that information should be straight forward; is it available?

If so has it been made available to folks?

Curt

If memory serves, Willapa was the poor stepchild for stock assessment. From what I recall, there were years with not much done because of the need to do Grays because of Indian/non-Indian sharing/co-management.

Neither watershed has much for chum surveys; wind up Rivrguy on how those escapements are "estimated".

Not sure Curt but I will look around. The thing folks miss with the gillnetters claim that illegal private hatcheries are the source of the North River Chinook is pretty much delusional and why some in the REC community run around braying that [Bleeeeep!] is something well past hard to understand. The simple fact is that most folks have ZERO idea of survival rates. Unfed or some feed time fry have almost zero survival. Now you can get around that by rearing to about 150 fry to the lb, correct brood, and planting sites that are in ideal habitat but it is almost impossible to get enough eggs of that quality outside the Chehalis Basin.

SaSI was done quite a ways back prior to the implementation of that ridiculous piece of crap management plan R-6 put together under Ron Warren and Kirt Hughes. Also before the use of selective fishing ( which is selective in name only and a farce ) with few observers and the Region 6 staffer charged with the Commercials and never seeing a near death or dead fish come in to the boat in a commercial gillnet that needed to be revived. Willapa salmon harvest management, be it Commercial or Rec, is nearing to point that the local communities could loose a lot of the hatchery production in the near future.

The Chum thing is amazing and I will use Grays Harbor but Willapa is similar but I do not know the details as well. So in Grays Harbor they take three locations on the East Fork Satsop ( near Simpson 1, Cramer's Spawning Channel, and on Decker Creek ) and Stevens Creek on the Hump, add them up and then extrapolate basin wide. First Stevens Creek is the best Chum stream on the Hump and the three reaches of the Satsop are influenced by 300k to 500k of Chum released ( broodstocked parents ) that come back and spawn with the natural origin adults.

Now the purpose of the program was to rebuild the Satsop Chum which has happened but by utilizing spawning numbers heavily influenced by the hatchery Chum it results in a inappropriate break out of the number of harvestable adults resulting a steady destruction of Chum stocks above Satsop in the Chehalis and upper tributaries. The reason is simple in that upper basin Chum do not reproduce at the same rate as lower basin Chum. So they are quite willing to write off and exterminate native Chum stocks from 1/3 of the Chehalis Basin. That simple yet complex. The thing is commercial fisheries, be it tribal or non treaty, once established you play hell getting those things reformed. It usually follows the pattern of they are not there anymore kill em all, they were never there, ( when bounced and shown pictures you usually get " oh before my time" ) or to few remain to worry about and it is a real shame that happened. Oh did I mention that WDF&W WAS in charge then to? I do believe the words used are ZERO accountability with Region 6 District 17 staff past & PRESENT!

My e mail has gone to a reoccurring theme as to questions on the Grays Harbor & Willapa commercial seasons. So no I do not know the final season lay out for either and WDF&W has time with the APA process ( CR 102 to create the WAC ) in GH as it is 60 days after submission with two public comment periods.

That said the current Director and AG ( Attorney General's staff ) assigned to WDF&W have used the CR 103 or Emergency Rule Change to circumvent the APA process before. Yes you can sue them but unless you prove financial dislocation it will finish up legally AFTER the season and why the guides have not used this route is beyond me. Also interesting how WDF&W utilizes this to fend off citizens more or less enraged over being screwed one more time.

So in Grays Harbor they could get to mid August before dropping the Commercial CR 102 as it will be late Oct before time is available under the 3 consecutive net free days. No I do not know how Region 6 gets around the issue that Humptulips Wild Coho have not made escapement for 23 years. It should not effect the in river Rec as it will be C&R on Wild with a low hooking mortality but 2C both Commercial & sport no idea as the numbers are very much in the minus column for escapement before ANY harvest with much higher release mortalities.

It is my understanding that the proposed QIN seasons DO NOT violate any court agreed to escapement goals as they get 50% of the harvestable at the bar. The separation of the Hump and Chehalis is a WDF&W thing that the QIN DID NOT agree to and are NOT bound by. It does create problems for Region 6 in that the Recs can mold around the QIN seasons but NOT so the NT nets. WDF&W really has problems getting away from this Indian vs White Boy thing with commercial fisheries.

In Willapa WDF&W is close to or out of time for the infamous Commercial Dip In fishery in 2T. More commonly know as the screw the REC and Wild Chinook this lovely piece of unholy crap takes place in late July or early August. They have time for the remaining commercial fisheries.

One last item. Through the PDR process ( Public Document Request ) I and others have attempted to gather information. We make it public and when this rolled out in a PDR by the Advocacy I was startled. So let us go back to 2013 when one of our local fishers, well known on PP, yelled about no creel count in the Grays Harbor Bay fishery so off District 17 went AND CLOSED THE BAY SEASON. So now was it retribution or conservation or both? Well the creel census September 18 through September 21 had 589 angler trips with a harvest of 152 Wild Chinook & 27 marked Chinook harvested. In other words FISHING sucked! So why the closure? You choose but there is little doubt that what data District 17 had obtained did NOT show a major over harvest.

No not really. The Chehalis has one Chinook run that starts around may and ends in December. Our Chinook run starts with the Springers ( which are not Springers in the normal sense but the front end of the summer component ) followed in July by the primary Summer Chinook coming in through mid September. The last part of the run is mid Sept through the first part of October finishing with the late component latter part of October and November. The December Chinook that went to the E. & W. Folks Satsop, and two tributaries near Elma are pretty much wiped out. The Summers are primarily E. Fork Satsop & Upper Chehalis. Now the Wynoochee did have a true Springer run that Spawned in the gorge ( pre dam ) that WDFW did not recognize and are gone despite local efforts led by GHTU which DW can tell you about as he baby sat the brood.

Now hatchery releases of different numbers and stocks have occurred and some rather substantial. The second Satsop hatchery built was next to Schafer Park and one year they took 5 or 50 million eggs ( typo or ?? as no one knows ) and transferred them to the old Upper Chehalis Hatchery which lost them due to facility failure. Another is when the Hump went to native stock Chinook the entire Hump hatchery run of Chinook was transferred to the East Fork Satsop, reared to yearlings and released.

So in the Chehalis we have a Chinook run that has three distinct run timings as to spawning but the entry through the bay gets muddled. The thing is not many Chinook come in from the salt Nov & Dec but rather enter the bay and stage ( hold ) in the tide water areas in the Chehalis, which is to the South Elma Bridge on the Chehalis. Adults returning to some streams stage pretty hard up to several months, which is why they take a real pounding by commercials fisheries as they have a real habit of hanging out in the tidal zones of the river which is where the commercial fisheries are.