Actually, there are situations (and it surprised me) when an EG reduction is at least defensible. The winter steelhead EG was originally based on filling up the rearing habitat in the watershed. All accessible areas.

In many PS watersheds, the number of fish spawning in tributaries is falling; trip spawners are disappearing. So, a goal based on seeding the whole watershed is too high if the only spawners you put in are mainstem spawners. Putting more fish in the mainstem doesn't really seed the tribs.

Having said that-and remembering that for decades I supported fixed goals-Karluk Lake sockeye should be an eye-opener. The escapement data goes back about 2200 years. The run has always been "self-sustaining" and probably wasn't fished by humans much until about 1880-1900. The escapement varied from a low of about 400K in 70CE to 2-4M in the 1000-1880 time span. If you make the data set short enough you can just about prove any goal as there are a myriad of ecological and environmental factors that influence survival. Couple that with a pathological need to catch as many fish as possible and we get lower goals.

Here's what Willapa Bay looks like for hatchery kings over the past 10 fully reconstructed brood years...



Catch + escapement = total adult production.

7388 + 4983 = 12371

Exploitation rate = catch/production = 7388/12371 = 60%
Escapement rate = escapement/production = 4983/12371 = 40%

Within the pool of harvested fish, 59% of the take occurs PRE-terminal (not per-terminal)... as in BEFORE the first king is taken at Washaway..... only 41% of the take occurs in the bay itself, the lion's share of it taken by the gillnets by a factor of roughly 8:1 (7.97)

And the in-basin rec share? (Yeah, it's that skinny little orange slice of the pie) Less than 5% of total exploitation (4.56%)

I don't suppose Alaska and Canada see anything wrong in that equation . . .

The US/Canada treaty had (still might) a provision that the benefits of habitat improvement accrue to the folks doing the improvement. So, if WA actually removes culverts the benefits accrue to WA.

AK made the argument (Jeff Koenings, I believe) that since they are protecting the ocean up there they get the benefit of those fish. This was in response to Canada suggesting that if they (BC) improved habitat the catch would accrue in BC.

AK shares with nobody. So BC hits the lower 48.

Back in the day the winter black mouth fishery hammered Puget Sound Spring Chinook. But there were so few springers relative to the black mouth that it "it made no sense" to sacrifice so much much catch and opportunity to save so few fish.

I'm ready to throw in the towel on hatchery Chinook production, except for spring Chinook, since as far as we know, BC and AK aren't catching all of 'em, yet anyway. If AK and BC want WA Chinook, let them pay for the WA hatcheries.

Absolutely. But, remember that the Treaty still gives Canada Chinook and Coho so they will be catching more or our wild fish. Or, we will have to give up Fraser sockeye.

One problem on the stopping of hatchery Chinook production is that it would vastly reduce the H+W mix in the salt which used to be called the "pool". This would result in a even higher % of Natural Origin ( NOR ) WA Chinook caught in AK & BC unless their harvest is greatly reduced.

Oh Oh my bad the AK & BC intercept is the issue. Remember only 3% of Chinook caught in SE AK originate from AK so the lower the hatchery fish numbers are the greater the NOR impacts in the intercept fisheries.

I do remember DOF in the mid 80's closed the Blackmouth fishery in area 11. If I remember right, it closed in Feb to protect the White River Spring Chinook returning to the Minter Crk. Hatchery. They wanted to preserve the genes in a hatchery environment. No hatchery on the White then. Now the Muckleshoot hatchery produces them in decent numbers. Wish we could get a chance at em in the river, but the salt guys catch our share up North.

Rivrguy,

Yes, absent those many hatchery Chinook in SE AK waters, the fleet would take an even higher % of NORs. But it's those hatchery Chinook that buoy up the fishery, and absent the massive numbers of hatchery fish, they soon wouldn't be making gas money to be out there catching the few NORs. This would definitely be about playing hardball.

Sg

Its time to play hardball........batter up!!!!!!!

Hey folks, this thread is about GH/WB.... can we keep the northern intercept discussion on the other thread?

Would hate for any good AK/BC comments to be lost in the shuffle

The FTC thread can be about what anyone wants to put up Doc. If folks feel it is relevant or interesting fine post it in this thread. If you or I or don't fell it is relevant or interesting that is fine also as it is all about the sharing of information and thoughts. That said things will cross back and forth but I think the ocean intercept is of such great importance that all should follow the " Big Lie " thread for sure.



I think you got it SG but along with that comes no the other shoe. No hatchery fish we do not fish also. Interesting little box we and the fish are in.

In working on another issue Mike from R6 provided me this quick look at last fall's returns for Chinook. Keep in mind this is preliminary.

The preliminary natural spawning escapement (all fish putting eggs in the gravel) for fall Chinook in the Chehalis looks to be a bit over 16,000, and about 6,000 in the Hump this fall. I haven’t received the age data back from this group, but it will be interesting to see if the age structure is different from the past.

Look at it this way. The Fall Chinook came in fairly close to on time but a bit early and ramped up really fast. The QIN took a look after their first week of fishing and pulled for conservation. That is what saved our butts as that week is the difference between Chinook making and not making escapement. On the states side the 3 net free days ( known as 4/3 ) and the requirement to make escapement 3 out of 5 years or no targeted harvest ( known as 3/5 ) also played a major role. Imagine a full blown Rec fishery with retention coupled with QIN harvest and it would have been a disaster. So atta boys to both managers here for this issue.

While Coho numbers are not in yet the differences between how the Coho and Chinook were managed is amazing. Right out of the gate nobody believed the monster run in the preseason forecast. Then from the get go the ocean Coho harvesters performed way below expectations right to the terminal fisheries. The bay Recs early on brought the lots of Chinook but no Coho thing forward followed by the inriver Recs. The QIN harvest ( when they released the numbers but they knew ) showed harvest well below expectations. Then the state went in with the NT Nets and wella the same results. So shut down by the state and we GH Advisers were told the QIN did not agree.

Why such a difference in how the two stocks were managed? My personal opinion is they simply did not believe that Coho forecast could be that far off. Far off? Oh h--- folks it was not even close to reality. OK that said why disregard all the indicators and full speed ahead? It was a complete system failure by ALL the managers marine & fresh water to be sure, particularly with the ocean harvest showing a rather large problem that was simply ignored. This was compounded by both WDF&W & QIN staff's refusal to recognize the depth of the failure. So no atta boy here but rather a bit fat F minus and frankly that is a generous grade!

I will finish with this. Changes are coming and they are going to be difficult. First the ocean ( known as the ranch ) is collapsing for salmon production. We have a monster El Nino underway ( see El Nino attachment ) and the ocean PDO is collapsing. ( again see attachment PDO ) This has happened before and will again. Look at the attachment 2015 forecast & RR tab which is run reconstruction to see complete runs with harvest. This will likely going result in massive harvest restrictions both marine and fresh water. Now add to the problem is ocean intercept fisheries that has Alaska and British Columbia fisheries Chinook impacts over 80% then the situation becomes draconian.

This is where the gut check for terminal Rec fisheries particularly inriver comes in to play. The number of Rec fishers from outside Grays Harbor will continue to grow and that fact is undeniable. That the Rec fisher as a harvester is the most quarrelsome harvester is also undeniable. Banki vs jet boat vs drift boat vs purest ( oh my god they are flossing ) vs rules? what rules group vs locals vs traveling Wilburies vs guides ........ well I think that paints the picture. The fact is rather sooner than later the changes will happen. Simply put there is no way no how we are all going to be able to fish the same way the same places we have for years with all the competing interest outlined previously.

So what to do? Not sure but I can tell you it will be contentious. Heavens going South with friends this came up chatting followed by one really big argument. Which I do believe is a indicator on how deep this issue will be. We are in a time where the number of fishers is going to increase rapidly with our proximity to Puget Sound ( which is headed for the dumpster ) and decreasing runs in the short term at the least.

So folks think about it. How are we going to do this? WDF&W left to its own devises will get you what happened this year with the limited reopening after the Rec closure. Simply put the openings were not well structured or thought out is my view. Others use words that I have been known to use but probably should not be put in writing. So think about it, how do we working with the Agency get this done? Simply put ain't no way no how that WDF&W staff have the time, staff , knowledge of the Chehalis Basin Recs or the money to do it.

Think about it because the issue is just around the corner.

PS: If you want the attachments mentioned just e mail me.

That's all fine and dandy, but technically speaking, the unit of account for e-goal is NOS ( natural origin spawners)... NOT total spawners on the gravel.

From a conservation standpoint, NOS is the intellectually honest metric to determine whether the management objective was achieved.

Curious... did Mike provide you with any idea of the P-hos versus P-nos for each sub-basin?

Well nope on the breakout on natural & hatchery in the gravel but rather just what I posted. I just happened to be asking about another model and Mike provided what I posted up C&P. Frankly with so many waiting to see the numbers I was really appreciative of him sharing the preliminary numbers with us all. With the numbers of hatchery Chinook and the fact natural brood is used the hatchery in the gravel numbers will be well within parameters.

I worry about Hump Coho. Staff did not afford the same protections that they attempted to do in the Chehalis. After nearly 25 years of not making escapement the failure to reduce NOR impacts could have some dire consequences. I hope Mike and his guys get the numbers on Coho out soon. Regardless it was nice to get the preliminary Chehalis Chinook numbers and I for one appreciate Mike providing the public the numbers he did on Chinook. Does not always work like that.

This is interesting as it is and attempt to alter the Willapa Advisers and the process. I doubt it will go far but I think one can see the path the Commercial interest and the South Coast legislators are on.

H-3463.1

HOUSE BILL 2446



State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session By Representatives Rossetti, Orcutt, and Blake
Read first time 01/13/16. Referred to Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources.


1 AN ACT Relating to the distinction among the roles of
2 governmental employee participants and nongovernmental employee
3 participants on work groups established by the director of the
4 department of fish and wildlife; and amending RCW 77.04.120.


5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:


6 Sec. 1. RCW 77.04.120 and 2000 c 107 s 3 are each amended to
7 read as follows:
8 (1) The director shall investigate the habits, supply, and
9 economic use of food fish and shellfish in state and offshore waters.
10 (2) The director shall make an annual report to the governor on
11 the operation of the department and the statistics of the fishing
12 industry.
13 (3) Subject to RCW 40.07.040, the director shall provide a
14 comprehensive biennial report of all departmental operations to the
15 chairs of the committees on natural resources of the senate and house
16 of representatives, the senate ways and means committee, and the
17 house of representatives appropriations committee, including one copy
18 to the staff of each of the committees, to reflect the previous
19 fiscal period. The format of the report shall be similar to reports
20 issued by the department from 1964-1970 and the report shall include,
21 but not be limited to, descriptions of all department activities

1 including: Revenues generated, program costs, capital expenditures,
2 personnel, special projects, new and ongoing research, environmental
3 controls, cooperative projects, intergovernmental agreements, and
4 outlines of ongoing litigation, recent court decisions and orders on
5 major issues with the potential for state liability. The report shall
6 describe the status of the resource and its recreational, commercial,
7 and tribal utilization. The report shall be made available to the
8 public.
9 (4) In the director's execution of this section or any other duty
10 or responsibility of the department, the director may appoint and
11 utilize work groups, task forces, subcommittees, and other formally
12 recognized and designated processes that are intended to collect,
13 process, or disseminate expertise and opinions from other state
14 agencies, other levels of government, Indian tribes, constituent
15 groups, and unaffiliated citizens. Any process utilized by the
16 director that includes the participation of nongovernmental
17 employees, or a person acting in a nongovernmental role, must, unless
18 otherwise specifically designated by an act of the legislature, be
19 chaired by a nongovernmental participant and not by an employee of
20 the department. Employees of the department must be limited to staff
21 support and levels of participation less than that traditionally
22 bestowed upon the chair.

--- END ---

I've noticed that some advisory groups have a "chair"... others not.

GH and WB are in the NOT camp.

Not really sure how it changes outcomes. I could envision the lay chair leading the group of advisors, taking votes amongst the group for the purposes of passing recommendations .... bonafide advice to the agency.

The agency is still free to take the advice or leave it.... WDFW still has the final say.

As it stands now in the WB and GH advisories, WDFW leads the discussions.... input comes from all around the table from individual advisors, WDFW says OK we've heard the opinions in the room, then WDFW makes its independent decisions. Of course at the end, they will say they made the decision with advisor input for additional cover... the perception being as if the group gave its tacit approval for the decision, when in fact that may NOT be the case at all.

A real critical aspect of any group like that is agreed-to minutes. WDFW should provide a note-taker who submits DEAFT to all attending members. At the next meeting they finalize them with changes if necessary. Lack of minutes is a serious problem.

Mike from R 6 sent this out so I thought I would share it.

Hi Group,

It is that time of year again, time to get ready for the NOF process. Attached is a list of the upcoming meetings that you will want to put on your calendars. This is not a fully completed list, as more meetings may be added as the process progresses. We are working diligently with the Quinault Tribe to get the forecasts completed. Looking forward to seeing you all again soon.

Have a good weekend.

2016 North of Falcon Meeting Schedule
Date: Purpose: Location:
Feb 24th. Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Salmon Forecast mtg. Montesano City Hall

March 1st. State-wide Forecast meeting Olympia GA Auditorium

March 8th. Willapa Bay Advisory mtg. Raymond High School
March 9th. Grays Harbor Advisory mtg. WDFW Office Montesano

March 9-14 PFMC #1 Sacramento Ca. Double Tree Hilton
March 16-17 NOF #1 Lacey Committee Center

March 22nd. Willapa Bay Public mtg. TBD - Raymond Elks or High School
March 23rd. Grays Harbor Public mtg. Montesano City Hall

March 29-31 NOF #2 Lynnwood Embassy Suites
April 9-14 PFMC #2 Vancouver Wa. Hilton.