Just doing e mail and caught it but be unkind to the tribes if you like Ed Johnstone has a bit coming. God knows between the state and tribe pissing on each other for years it leaves us being the ping pong ball flying around. The problem is most do not have the historical memory ( I am really getting old! ) to get past the present to where and the hell things went South. In GH it was when the state split Hump & Chehalis in GH to enable the bay fishery followed by a bunch absolutely pure BS in release moralities. The tribe does the same as they ignore the 15 to 20 % Sea Lion theft like it does not exist. It has continued to go down hill picking up speed from that point with it just depending on the year as to who screws who with the Rec usually getting the shaft as with inriver last year.. The Bay Rec got screwed this year by the near 600 NT Net Coho impacts with the Bay Rec half that. For whatever the reason WDF&W just cannot turn loose of the NT Nets with last year screwing the inriver & this year the bay.

I'm still of a mind that we should work toward the elimination of hatchery salmon production in Gray's Harbor, except for mitigation in regard to Skookumchuck and Wynoochee. (I'm not anti-hatchery, mind you.) The presence of forecasted hatchery salmon in GH gives WDFW the excuse to try to manage for NT gillnet fishing, when it is clear to any objective observer that it should have been ended years ago.

Absent hatchery salmon, QIN would have little choice to manage for wild salmon escapements since they could not rely on their policy science that hatchery and wild salmon are the same and therefore hatchery fish could fill the escapement void.

And absent hatchery salmon, there would be no excuse to hold NT gillnet fisheries impacting wild salmon under the guise of harvesting abundant hatchery salmon (in the years when they are actually abundant, not this year or next, obviously).

When not faced with the coastal "blob" or freshwater drought conditions, GH is actually pretty darn productive of wild salmon, enough to provide satisfying treaty and NT recreational fishing. And WDFW would save all the money pissed away producing hatchery salmon for B.C. and managing a NT gillnet fishery that costs more to manage than it returns in commercial landings. That alone would contribute to a significant improvement in the image and integrity of WDFW, not to mention its financial solvency.

Sg

Salmo, you used "image" and "integrity" in the same sentence with WDFW. How come???

Carcassman,

We Pollyanna types are ever the optimist.

Sg

Can't agree enough with Sg's thoughts on closing the GH hatcheries. I fear that idea would meet with political opposition by the Tribes and our local representatives (the ones keeping the NT nets fishing in GH), but I agree GH holds its own nicely when it isn't beset by poor ocean conditions or relentless overharvest.... Sadly, it's usually beset by one, the other, or both.

If the Leg or tribes want GH hatcheries (or anywhere in the state) let them fund them with GF funds and let the license funds go to benefitting those who pay.

It is common to cross things between places. GH has been managed for NOR always ( Hump Coho the exception ) and never managed for a directed hatchery harvest even when we had 6 times the production. Did make for rather good inriver fishing as NOR impacts limited hatchery harvest by nets. In tight times or situations such as the Hump C&R primarily Rec but hatchery fish are just a bonus. We are give or take 6 to 1 wild over hatchery in both Chinook & Coho so the concept that no hatchery fish would reduce NOR impacts is a bit of a reach. It is always the NOR impact limiting and targeted with hatchery in the mix. GH hatchery production is a small sideline thing that can be either a wash or beneficial but seldom to never a driver in harvest.

Just a catch up for folks as nobody is saying much. Region 6 Fish Programs Manager is very ill and will be off work a substantial time. I wish him success in his struggle and thank him for his time with our community. Steve is bit old school but a damn straight ahead guy and descent to work with which is about as good as it gets.

The other thing is Annette Hoffman is the the interim Region 6 R-6 Fish Program manager Region 4 and it is said she wiz at math. Thought I would get this out with rumors being so rampant.

Oh almost forgot the Grays Harbor CR 102 for the 2016 WAC setting the fall salmon seasons will be filed shortly.

Math whiz, eh? At this point, I'd settle for management that doesn't try to convince us that 2 + 2 is 5....

Just for fun. Nothing personally directed at Steve, who I would also like to wish well.

The CR-102 is out for Grays Harbor and Willapa.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#16-02-117b

Here are the hearing date & times for the GH & Willapa CR 102's for those not on the distribution list.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Notice of Proposed Rule Making

In an effort to reduce unnecessary printing costs and help protect our environment, we are asking those interested in viewing the CR-102 and proposed WAC changes to access it electronically at the following web site, where it can be viewed or downloaded http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html.


2016 North of Falcon Rulemaking - Recreational Salmon Fishery - Coastal Freshwater

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 21, 2016 at the Region 6 Montesano Office in the large conference room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563.

June 21, 2016 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.:
WAC 220-310-180 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – Coast,
WAC 220-16-220 – Geographical definitions – Willapa Bay, and
WAC 220-56-185 – Marine Area Codes.
Contact Rules Coordinator to provide written comments by June 21, 2016


2016 North of Falcon Rulemaking - Recreational Salmon Fishery

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 24, 2016 in the Natural Resources Building, Room 172, 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, WA 98501.

June 24, 2016 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.:
WAC 232-28-620 Coastal salmon – Saltwater seasons and daily limits (Marine Areas in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor) and
WAC 220-55-220 Two-pole endorsement
Contact Rules Coordinator to provide written comments by June 24, 2016


In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing you may submit written comments to: Rules Coordinator via mail at: WDFW Enforcement 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091, via e-mail: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or via fax: (360) 902-2155.

If you would like an email copy or need a printed copy of the proposed rules, please send a request
to: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or call (360) 902-2700.


Please be aware – if you open the attached Excel files on a Mac, the file will not load properly. It may appear that it does open correctly but there will be cells and data missing that you won’t notice.



And then this which is the briefing given the Commission early on this year.


Summary
Meeting dates: March 24, 2016
Agenda item: Grays Harbor Salmon Management

Presenter(s):
Ron Warren, Assistant Director, Fish Program Jim Scott, Special Assistant, Director’s Office Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
Background summary:
1) The purpose of the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, and provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Grays Harbor Basin.
2) The policy includes a risk control provision that presumptively limits the impacts of WDFW-managed fisheries to 5% if a spawner goal has not been achieved for 3 of the last 5 years.
3) The forecasted return of 19,503 Chinook salmon to the Chehalis River in 2016 is more than twice the spawner goal. Despite this large predicted return, the risk control provision, if applied without any flexibility, would limit fishery impacts for WDFW– managed fisheries to 5%.
4) The Department evaluated potential adaptive management actions that would relax the 5% risk control provision but still result in a high likelihood of achieving the spawner goal.
5) Preliminary analysis indicates that an 85% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 8% nontreaty harvest rate, and a 77% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 12% nontreaty harvest rate.
6) A key assumption of the analysis is that the Quinault tribal fishery will be managed to achieve 50% of the harvestable number of Chinook salmon as determined by the preseason forecast of abundance.

Additional information is provided in the attached briefing paper.
Policy issue(s) you are bringing to the Commission for consideration:
During the North of Falcon preseason planning process, the Department proposes to explore adaptively managing the state-managed Grays Harbor fishery to provide a high likelihood of achieving the Chehalis Chinook salmon spawner goal and providing a limited recreational Chinook fishery with a target harvest rate of 8%-10%.
Public involvement process used and what you learned:

N/A
Action requested:
Public input and Fish and Wildlife Commission discussion of proposed adaptive management actions.
Draft motion language:
N/A
Justification for Commission action:
N/A
Communications Plan:
Adaptive management proposal will be discussed with stakeholders during the North of Falcon preseason fishery planning process.

Does anyone have any idea what is going on here? A end run by staff as it is outside the NOF process?



2016 North of Falcon Rulemaking - Recreational Salmon Fishery

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 24, 2016 in the Natural Resources Building, Room 172, 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, WA 98501.

June 24, 2016 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.:
WAC 232-28-620 Coastal salmon – Saltwater seasons and daily limits (Marine Areas in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor) and
WAC 220-55-220 Two-pole endorsement
Contact Rules Coordinator to provide written comments by June 24, 2016


In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing you may submit written comments to: Rules Coordinator via mail at: WDFW Enforcement 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091, via e-mail: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or via fax: (360) 902-2155.

If you would like an email copy or need a printed copy of the proposed rules, please send a request
to: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or call (360) 902-2700.


Please be aware – if you open the attached Excel files on a Mac, the file will not load properly. It may appear that it does open correctly but there

& the awnser is below and THX to Barb for clearing it up.



The June 24th public hearing is for comments relating to the two marine areas 2.1 and 2.2 for WB and GH. Those proposed regulations are filed in a different WAC than the freshwater regulations and that WAC is filed through the folks in Olympia not through me. So if anyone wants to provide public comments for either of the marine areas in WB or GH they need to either send in those comments to the Rules Coordinator or attend the hearing on the 24th.

If they have comments for any proposed freshwater regulations for WB, GH or North Coast they should attend the hearing on June 21st or send in their comments to the Rules Coordinator.

If you look on the email you received below, I included the title that the regulations are listed under on our webpage. I also highlighted in red what WACs the public hearing was for; the hearing on the June 21st said Coastal Freshwater Rules and WB Recreational Boundary and the hearing on the 24th said Saltwater seasons.

I hope that makes sense now. Let me know if it is still unclear.
Barbara

I think I came to an AHA moment the other day.

The way the hearings are structured/scheduled to separate the fresh vs salt and the rec vs comm fisheries into multiple distinct hearings makes it extremely difficult to have a persuasive argument in just one hearing alone.

WHY?

Because the fisheries are inextricably linked in the harvest model to achieve the conservation objectives. Since it's a fully allocated zero-sum game, to give anything to one sector at this point means taking something away from the other. Changes simply can't be made in isolation.

"Oh wait.... that's a DIFFERENT hearing. Sorry, can't help you."

OK... maybe I'm just getting old and jaded.

You may be getting old but your vision seems to be getting more acute.

If you really want a jaded view, perhaps take into account that many of these hearings (Columbia River/B-10 for example) take place after the deal has already been inked with 3rd parties. Oregon and WA have already announced the damn agreement and seasons.

WDFW has exactly zero intention of listening to anything that is said. If they cared, they wouldn't hold the hearing after the decision was final.

The final ( well kinda ) 2016 Commercial Grays Harbor seasons were filed but with changes WDF&W had to do a supplemental CR 102. There were changes in the 2C Commercial seasons. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2016/wsr_16-15-064.pdf To save reading here are the changes.

This attachment summarizes changes made since the filing of the original CR-102 that was filed as WSR 16-11-102. These changes were made based on public input received and a review of season structure and management objectives within Grays Harbor.

Changes:
Catch Area 2C:
 Adjustment to days scheduled in week 43, October 17th and 18th, to 12-hour opens.
 Allow the retention of unmarked Coho during openings in week 43,, October 17th and
18th, and during openings in week 45, October 30th and 31th

Timing on hours chaned but that was a relatively small thing to be honest. The retain Wild Coho thing when the Rec have to release will and has some screaming on the Rec side. ( no idea what the Commercials think or if they do think ) So this, do a phony release thing with a paper mortality number that we all know is pure 100% U.S.A made BS or they fish to they get their impact number and off the water. Some ( including myself suggested ) this change. I think R-6 got it right as accountability outweighs by a mile the need for a REC fishers perception that this somehow is unfair because they cannot retain unclipped fish. That impact number was there even if the Commercial did the live box release fiasco just now the numbers will be real, or as close as one can get them.


.

Fawn Sharp who is President of the QIN recently wrote a op-ed bit for the Aberdeen World newspaper. Good article but dear lord it was about as self serving ( for the QIN ) as one can get. So this was published in the World and was written by the wife of a lifelong East County resident, oh and she fishes.


Editorial on the culvert case omitted key facts

The editorial published in the Daily World written by Fawn Sharp of the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) contains many factual points about habitat and declining salmon runs. It’s not what she says that is troubling, but rather what she omits.

The culvert case is the latest ruling of the long running suit wherein the federal government sued the state of Washington. The first major ruling in U.S. v- WA was the “Boldt Decision” which established the QIN had the right to “fish in common” with non-tribal citizens which Boldt translated to 50/50 sharing of the salmon. At that point, both tribal and non-tribal citizens were granted a right to fish together and the state and QIN would “co-manage” the resource.

Ms. Sharp wrote “Don’t fall into the trap of blaming tribal harvest for the demise of this precious resource. It’s just not true. ……..the process used to determine if the harvests are safe are exhausting, highly scrutinized and based on escapement levels tailored to available habitat.” I strongly challenge this commentary.

First, the escapement goal for salmon is established under a concept called “Maximum Sustainable Yield” (MSY). MSY is theoretically, the largest yield (or catch) that can be taken from a species' stock over an indefinite period (Wikipedia). Then, in Grays Harbor, the seasons set often exceed MSY and the over harvesting of salmon reduces the run size too less than the escapement goal. The solution offered by the QIN for failing to reach escapement goals for Chehalis River Chinook was not to cut back on its harvest. Rather, the QIN chose to successfully petition federal and state regulators to lower the escapement goal so the rate of harvest could be continued. As a result, fewer Chinook are expected to reach the spawning ground today than in the past.

Seldom do the co-managers allow adequate numbers of salmon to clear the lower stretches of the rivers to use the currently available habitat. Requiring non-tribal taxpayers to invest nearly $2 billion on culvert replacement will do very little, if any, in recovering salmon runs unless the harvest that is co-managed by the QIN is set at a level that allows adequate numbers of salmon to actually reach the reopened portions of the streams.

As for the 50/50 ruling in Boldt, the state Fish & Wildlife Commission passed a policy for Grays Harbor that prioritized conservation over harvest. At that time, Ms. Sharp was critical of the action on the grounds no conservation issues existed in our area. As a result of the policy, Fish & Wildlife lead the way and curtailed state non-tribal seasons last fall. No retention of natural spawning Chinook (unclipped) was allowed in the Chehalis River in an attempt to get more salmon up to the spawning grounds. The Quinaults then moved to take advantage by setting a net season that captured 8,697 Chinook. Far in excess of its 50 percent share, many of those salmon that expired in a tribal net in the Chehalis from the Port of Grays Harbor to S. Montesano were from the non-treaty half that was “foregone” in an attempt to insure enough Chinook reached the spawning grounds. This was extremely frustrating to the non-tribal fishers like myself who were asked to hang up our poles only to see our fish end up on ice at the tribal dock on the Wishkah.

I agree with Ms. Sharp on the notion conservation is a standard that needs to be fostered by all the state’s citizens, tribal and non-tribal alike. Same with the harvest. As Judge Boldt stated the “fishing in common” language of the treaty means 50/50. My great grandchildren have the same right to catch a fish with a pole as a Quinault child does with a net. Boldt did not say that the non-tribal citizens (taxpayers) get 100% of the bill and tribal citizens get all the fish.

I agree with Ms. Sharp that we are at a crossroad of historical importance. Not just for our children who would fish, but those who don’t as well. Most my age who’ve lived in Grays Harbor remember the loss of jobs and extremely negative economic impacts of the “spotted owl” when it hit the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act. Numerous salmon and steelhead runs in Puget Sound and the Columbia River that are co-managed with tribes have already reached that designation. The first step in that process is a notice of “over-harvest”. Last year, the feds so flagged the Chehalis Chinook. The coastal economy simply can’t risk seeing those salmon runs to decline due to the rate of harvest to the point where we have another spotted owl disaster.

Ms. Sharp proudly presented the importance tribal citizens place on preserving fishing and restoring habitat. Many in the Quinault Indian Nation deserve that recognition. However, the fall salmon season is approaching and once again the state is asking the non-tribal side to step aside and allow the necessary numbers of salmon reach the spawning grounds. Hopefully, the Quinault Indian Nation will “practice what it preaches” and not take advantage once again by exceeding its right to catch half the fish available for harvest.

Mary Ann Schweitzer

Fawn Sharps OP-ED: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yYVJNeUFZY2p2NEE/view

If the Quinault do not see "conservation issues" and have not taken steps to work in a realistic manner with co-managers what makes you think they will not take our fish again? I still think that the state is doing the right thing, let the Quinaut talk to the Creator when they have to atone for sins against the planet. You know, if they want to destroy the fish runs for their decendants there is not much we can do about it other then try and do the right thing for the future of the salmon. Let them explain it "upstairs".Bob R

One of the questions asked by WDF in Fish Bio interviews in the late 70s/early 80s was along the lines of "If you know a stock needs protection and you know that the next manager in line will not be properly protecting it, what kind of fisheries should you schedule?"

The desired answer was that you would not fish on a stock needing protection even if the later-in-line managers overfished.

Should be noted that the test questions were (at that time) designed by the bios and not by the politician/managers.