I wonder what Ron Warren told the director when he went up to his office? You think he accurately conveyed the sports' opposition? Don't think so. He seemed to already have his mind made up before it started. An observation I made is that RW is very unprofessional in the way he conducts the meetings.

Scroll to page 59 to read the discussion about finding NO difference in post-release survival of fall chinook from tangle vs gill nets.

It goes on to point out the SHARP contrast with results found in the CR on spring chinook.

Using the CR results for tangle nets and applying them to GH is TOTALLY inappropriate.

Agreed. Apparently, the "best available science" is that which helps WDFW Region 6 make its bogus case for yet another commercial screw job.

I wonder what the mythical "96%" of citizens the gillnetters so nobly serve would react to learning that the few thousand extra coho available in markets this fall as a result of these irresponsible fisheries came at the expense of all but an entire run of wild chinook.

Would anybody out there care to argue that hatcheries or habitat will be the ultimate cause of the extinction of the Chehalis Basin's chinook and chum?

I have never seen much of a difference between gill nets and tangle nets in actual practice. Both snag fish and then they drown. Any potential improvement in survival is based on ideas of short soak times and recovery boxes, both useful in theory but not actually a factor in the fisheries.

From a netter's perspective, there are just too many things to keep track of and to do in the middle of a busy fishery. Thus, a fish fling happens. Any fish that survives the first experience will most likely encounter another net in short order. And so it goes.

We are kidding ourselves if we think tangle nets are the answer. We have to move from non selective harvest methods to selective ones.

Edit: This e mail thread is from the FTC library and is intended to show the internal WDF&W conversations but not endorse anything but rather further the discussion. The last post by Kirt is informative just as to how they came to the 45% mortality on normal gillnets and what was utilized to arrive at it.

Kirt Hughes response is the last post in the e mail chain on net mortality.

For NT GN fisheries in WB and GH we are using 45%. The Nisqually used 50% last year and will end up near that for 2012. The 45% is a fairly long standing value that Flint identified based on the work Vanderhagen did on the Columbia. Ashbrook was involved in some of that stuff at the end.

From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:04 AM
To: Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Cc: Phillips, Larry C (DFW); Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: RE: Tangle net survival estimates

Hi Brett,

I'm not aware of any NOF wide agreed-to mortality rates for tangle nets. There was some work done about 10 years ago with tangle nets in Area 10 with the Suquamish Tribe, and I think there was something for the Nisqually fishery, and there must be some agreement on mortality rates for gill net release in Grays Harbor. So it might be worth while checking with Jay Zischke, Larry Phillips, and/or Kirt Hughes to see what was used for modeling in those areas.
Cheers

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:05 AM
To: Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Cc: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: Tangle net survival estimates

Yep, I’m sure you’ve seen those estimates. They are for spring Chinook released from tangle nets in the Columbia River just above the estuary. The caveats include: cold water, spring Chinook, freshwater. These are important because we were unable to make post-release survival estimates for fall Chinook and coho captured and released from Willapa Bay but the fish were in significantly worse condition at capture, and this indicates to me they did not survive as well. In the Willapa, the water was warmer, and the fish were in the midst of physiologic transformation in the estuary.
All that said, I think the estimate for you to use is the one that has been informed by my work and then gone through policy consideration –Steve Thiesfeld has a list with mortality values that are assigned so I’ve cc-ed him. Stevo, will you send Brett your list? If Steve doesn’t have tangle net info, then the post-release survival estimate based on my groups’ work is 86.2%. I attach the BPA report with this info and more provided. The table with post-release survival estimates and their confidence intervals is on p. 1-21. Also, in the appendix on p. 1-64, you’ll find a summary of the Willapa results.
Cheers!
Charmane

From: Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:29 PM
To: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Subject: RE: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

Hey, got an unrelated question for ya’ since you are the tangle net queen! LOL!

Somewhere, I have seen your estimates of tangle net mortalities on Chinook released. At least I think I have. I’m drawing a blank where to get those numbers. Got the paper you wrote handy or link or???? I’m lazy, and getting tired. Thanks, getting ready to do battle with Lummi!

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:28 AM
To: Bosworth, Aaron (DFW); Whitney, Jennifer L (DFW); Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Cc: Hoffmann, Annette (DFW)
Subject: FW: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

Here you go, Region 4 District Bios!

From: Hoffmann, Annette (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:25 AM
To: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW); Frazier, Patrick A (DFW); Whalen, John T (DFW); Easterbrooks, John A (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW); Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Korth, Jeff (DFW)
Cc: Long, John A (DFW); Bramwell, David R (DFW)
Subject: RE: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

You will want to sent the doodle pool to the Region 4 District Bio’s who know their rivers to look at these WAC’s. So, please include them in these emails (Aaron Bosworth, Jenni Whitney, Brett Barkdull).

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Frazier, Patrick A (DFW); Whalen, John T (DFW); Easterbrooks, John A (DFW); Hoffmann, Annette (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW); Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Korth, Jeff (DFW)
Cc: Long, John A (DFW); Bramwell, David R (DFW)
Subject: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

Hi Everyone,
Here is the document that will be given to the Commission for this weekend’s rule adoption. I expect the Commission may have a few tweaks before it is filed as the CR103. At next Monday’s meeting and in a follow up email, I will update you regarding any changes.

Regarding the trout pamphlet day –please decide which of your staff will attend and have them fill out the Doodle Poll (http://www.doodle.com/md3htu9n7umf37eb) by this Friday. I’ll plan to announce the day of the meeting at next Monday’s meeting and send a follow up email that includes the date and who will be attending by region. Or, if none of the dates on the Doodle Poll work, please let me know what weekends work and I’ll follow up on Monday with a weekend plan.

The objectives for this meeting are 1) to get all the gamefish rules in the pamphlet; 2) to improve the pamphlet and pamphlet process; and 3) to have all gamefish rules in the pamphlet before the NOF pamphlet weekend. Please know that I have heard from many people, including regional staff, that this meeting is much needed. We are going to try and improve efficiency by making changes in “real time” with meeting rules that include 1) focus on content and not format until the end and 2) where there are disputes, one person will be the lead for determining and instructing Dave about the change. Dave plans to send the pamphlet draft in mid-February to help provide everyone prep time.

Thank you for all your help,
Charmane


Charmane Ashbrook
ESA Response, Scientific Collection Permits and Sport Rules Unit Leader
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
360-902-2672
[i][/i][color:#C0C0C0][/color]

Key words regarding chinook release mortality from tangle nets...

In my mind, the only meaningful chinook savings in using tangle nets is PERHAPS a lower encounter rate as the gear may not be as efficient in capturing the fish.

Once encountered, the release mortality comes from the unavoidable physical handling of an already stressed fish. Suspending entangled fish mid-air while busy dealing with other fish already on board... yeah that's real healthy. Just bringing fish over the roller is another added stress. If the fish isn't moving/thrashing, it's probably good as dead. If it is still thrashing, it must be manhandled to disentangle it from the webbing, further contributing to the stress factor. A rec guy isn't even allowed to remove a salmon from the water!

OK it's out of the net, now what? Live boxes? Well, we've all seen how consistently they were (NOT) used in the video. And with all the coho they will have to be dealing with, how much time and care do we expect them to spend on handling/reviving the economically worthless (to them) wild chinook bycatch.

Finally, there's the issue of recapture. Let's be intellectually honest here. When 20+ nets are strung completely across the migratory channel, a released king is as good as dead. This is especially true in the narrow bottleneck we know as area 2A. If he's not dead the first time, he will be by the second or third recapture. The only lucky ones are the ones released from the closing set of the fishing day.

Notable excerpts from...

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/sk/pdf/Report_8.pdf


Because many fish needed to be revived, a successful commercial selective fishery in this setting is expected to require a high ratio of marked hatchery to wild fish.

For the record, the mark rate for Chehalis fall chinook is exceedingly LOW

We did observe that many coho and Chinook captured in tangle nets and gill nets in this environment were lethargic and needed to be revived. This differs from similar studies in the Columbia River, where most spring Chinook and steelhead were in vigorous condition at capture.

Fish are going to be much more stressed by this gear type in warmer estuary water

Based on the condition at capture and method of capture results, a net that is appropriate for a tangle net coho fishery will also act as a tangle net for fall Chinook bycatch. Similarly, a net that acts as a gill net for a coho fishery will also act as a gill net for fall Chinook bycatch.

As mentioned earlier, we did not detect a difference between the tangle net and gill net for Chinook post release survival.

These results contrast sharply with a similar evaluation of the post-release survival of spring Chinook salmon on the Columbia River (Vander Haegen et al. 2004). In that study, spring Chinook captured and released from tangle nets did not differ in immediate survival from gill net captured fish but did survive at significantly higher rates following their release than Chinook released from gill nets.

Different species are known to have different responses to the same stressors (Schreck et al. 2001), and so may not respond to the nets in the same ways. A given species may also display a different response in a more stressful environment than a less stressful environment. Another possibility is that environmental stressors may override and mask survival benefits provided by the tangle net. In our study, the estuarine environment was likely unfavorable to capture and release because the water was relatively warm during the coho migration. Fishing in better conditions (e.g. cooler water, fewer predators) would most likely increase survival, although we do not know the magnitude of the difference. On the Columbia River, spring Chinook salmon were captured after they had migrated about 140 miles upstream, and were presumably habituated to the river environment.

To date, WDFW personnel have conducted several studies to evaluate the usefulness of different gear types in reducing the release mortality of non-targeted stocks in commercial selective fisheries. A three-year study in the Columbia River found statistically significant differences in long-term survival among fish released from a tangle net versus those caught and released from gill nets. This study found no statistically significant differences in long term survival among fish caught and released from tangle versus gill nets.


I think that last paragraph says it all

Exactly right! Very clear detail.

I love the way a detail oriented Eye Doc phrases things, helps a ER guy out with the details.

This is a great discussion. I had no idea that there was access to these detailed email discussions.

Makes me happy I try to say mostly smart things on forums and in work email, although my friends point out my goofiness plenty.

As I read further into the data I get a little smarter and more aggravated and discouraged at the same time. It seems that good science is being intentionally or ignorantly disregarded. I more fully understand Francis' post about being discouraged, but I have no doubt he will persevere.

"This study found no statistically significant differences in long term survival among fish caught and released from tangle versus gill nets."

OK, True Dat, so why then are we forcing our commercial fishers to use this outdated technology that cuts off recreational fishers from catching opportunities and harms non targeted stocks at the same time?

This current WB/GH commercial fishery is a sinking ship, destined to go down. I mean, that as this is brought to light it will not continue. I predict that Region 6 will be heavily, heavily scrutinized going forward. It used to be that local areas stayed local, but those days are gone. this is a regional issue, if not national wrt harvest and sustainability, and we need to up the ante. Time to work those smart proposals and talking points.

"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" "Time to roll the dice."

I think that emails, letters, and personal conversations with WDFW staff and administration are all good. And I think that it is sage advice to "Keep our words sweet, lest we have to eat them." That does not mean the words cannot be focused, just that we should all leave here as "friends." I believe the WDFW staff are concerned and want "all this" to work, doing good things while staying employed and providing for their families.

This took up more bandwidth than I intended. I hope it is useful.

Regards,

Rick

The Commission policy for the 2013/14 NOF process....


http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3608.html



Fish and Wildlife Commission

Commission Policy Documents




<< Commission Policy Documents Index


POLICY DECISION



POLICY TITLE:

2013-2014 North of Falcon

POLICY NUMBER:

POL-C3608



Supersedes:

: C-3608, 2011-2012

Effective Date:

February 8, 2013







Termination Date:

December 31, 2014



See Also:

POL C-3001

Approved by:

/s/ Miranda Wecker





POL C-3620



Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair




DOWNLOAD: Signed copy of POL-C3608 (PDF)



North of Falcon Policy

This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual salmon fishery planning process known as “North of Falcon.” When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure that decisions are made consistent with: the Department’s statutory authority; U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, the Endangered Species Act; the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan; the Pacific Salmon Treaty; the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan; pertinent state/tribal agreements; and the applicable Fish and Wildlife Commission policies.

The Department will implement this Policy consistent with the purposes and intended outcomes described in the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Planning Project including:
•Salmon and steelhead will be managed to recover and assure sustainability in a way that is science-based, well-documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable.
•Fisheries will be managed to meet or exceed ESA, recovery, and conservation goals; and harvest management measures will protect and promote the long-term well-being of the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Fishery Management

General
•On a statewide basis, fishing opportunities will be provided when they can be directed at healthy wild and hatchery stocks.
•Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunity and minimize impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration legal constraints on implementation and budgetary limits associated with required sampling, monitoring and enforcement programs.
•When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial users.
•When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers, including retention and catch and release fisheries.
•The Department will seek non-treaty fishing access to unutilized portions of treaty harvest allocations through the implementation of pre-season agreements, taking into consideration changes in abundance, fishery conflicts, and factors that may influence attainment of spawning escapement objectives.

Sockeye, Chum, and Pink Salmon
•For fisheries directed at Fraser River-origin chum, pink, and sockeye stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
•For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound-origin chum stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
•For fisheries directed at Lake Washington sockeye, the first 200,000 non-treaty harvest will be provided to recreational fishers. If the allowable non-treaty harvest is greater than 200,000, commercial harvest directed at this stock may be considered.
•For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin pink salmon, seasons will be established that provide meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries while minimizing gear and other fishery conflicts.

Chinook and Coho Salmon
•The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas, considering factors such as: the uniqueness of each area; the availability of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season; the desire to provide high levels of total recreational opportunity; and the biological impacts.
•Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries.
•The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Columbia River Salmon Management (POL-C3620) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River salmon fisheries. Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives.
•Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries.
•Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers.

In-Season Management
•When in-season management actions are taken, they will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with pre-season conservation and harvest management objectives, and the fishery intent developed through the North of Falcon process.

Monitoring, Sampling and Enforcement
•Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs will be provided to account for species and population impacts of all fisheries and to ensure compliance with state regulations.
•Fishery participants will be required to comply with fishery monitoring and evaluation programs designed to account for species and population impacts.

Gear and Fishery Conflicts
•Recreational and commercial fisheries shall be structured to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. Unanticipated fishery interaction issues identified in-season, including conflicts with fisheries directed at other species, shall be resolved by involving the appropriate sport and commercial representatives in a dispute resolution process managed by Department staff.

Incidental Mortalities
•The Department will manage fisheries to minimize mortalities on non-target species (e.g. rockfish, sea birds, etc.). Management regimes will include strategies to limit seabird mortalities consistent with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Communications
•The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery implementation, incorporating the following intents:
&#9702;North of Falcon participants will be included as observers during appropriate state/tribal discussions of fishery issues.
&#9702;all decisions made during the North of Falcon process will be recorded in writing.
&#9702;variety of tools will be used to effectively communicate with the public, to receive input on pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and to make available the record of decisions. Such tools will include: recreational and commercial advisory groups; public workshops to address key issues; the WDFW North of Falcon Web site; and in-season tele-conferences.

Other Species
•The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Lower Columbia Sturgeon Management (POL-C3001) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River and coastal sturgeon fisheries and related incidental impacts. Management of Willapa Bay sturgeon fisheries will be further guided by Willapa Bay Framework management objectives.

Delegation of Authority

The Fish and Wildlife Commission delegates the authority to the Director to make harvest agreements with Northwest treaty tribes and other governmental agencies, and adopt permanent and emergency regulations resulting from the agreements made during the annual North of Falcon process.


Here is a link to all the Commission policies....

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies.html

Update time but on April 1, 20013 Hamilton vs WDF&W was filed in Thurston County Court. After many months of efforts to obtain information and make it public and being stymied few options remained. A link to the information is http://fishingthechehalis.net/want-to-help

Reading this got me to thinking that the Gray's Harbor fishery management exercise needs to be subjected to a trial-type hearing, complete with pre-trial discovery, sworn witnesses, and rules of evidence. And then along comes Rivrguy! Way to go!

I sure wouldnt bet against Dave on this given the past success at Satsop Springs.

Just catching up. Thanks for the vote of confidence but folks this is not a Dave bit as ain't no way I have all the skills needed. From my brother Tim to Ron S. from Elma to Randy B. at Rochester to a huge number of folks pitching in it is simply a grass roots thing. It is time to speak out and object to having your rights trampled. That simple but to prevail far more complex and will take all of us.

If I recall correctly the line in the movie was " I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore".

Rivrguy,

I would gladly post up a raffle/auction of one of my homemade stainless Steel Clam digging tubes and donate the proceeds to this cause. It is very important to anybody who fishes the two Bays and rivers mentioned and I commend you for doing what you are doing.

Can you get it approved with Bob or Corey and I'll get it made and start the auction? Highest bidder gets it but the winner will be responsible to pick it up in Hoquiam or maybe someone could deliver it wherever.

I have never done anything like this but somehow I will help all I can.

Thank you for doing this,

fp

Will PM Bob and ask the question Fred. Thx for the support guy!!

Rivrguy,

As soon as I can get a Clam tube put together I will put it up for an auction. High bidder gets it no matter what the price is and all the money raised will go to your, or should I say "our", FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET fund? Hope it does well. Somebody might get the tube for 5 bucks or 500. Ya never know!

Anybody wanting to donate to FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET this will be a good way to get a free Clam tube and they work great.

Look for it soon.

fp

Our FishingtheChehalis fund Fred. Our is a good word Fred as FTC staff is all volunteer. Due to the efforts of many sport fishers from the Chehalis Basin and across the state FTC it is becoming the Chehalis Basin's citizen's voice for change. That is what it is about the average citizen's right to available harvest and the protection of the resource.

Off the soap box and again thanks Fred.

Well !!!!!!

In eastern WA, watching the rain.......guess I'll bet 1st on the fp clam gun, $$$$$$ to go to FTC

bid....... $ 85.00


I haven't dug clams in 30+ years......maybe I'll just walk up and down the beach "to show fp's awesome work".........