Exactly!

That's no loop hole.

If possible means just that. If possible, the state fishery may go in.

If NOT possible, they're left to sit high and dry on the beach.

If the QIN schedule makes it impossible for the state fishery to fit in within the constraint of the mandated escapement window of 3 consecutive days in a calendar week, then the state does NOT fish.

PERIOD.

Makes total sense. I should have recognized that and stand corrected!

With that notion, it really DOES show Region 6's disregard for commission policy. Not good.

It will be interesting so see what, if anything, Fish Program, WDFW Admin, or the Commission will do about this.

My guess is the odds on "little or nothing" are pretty short.

Well the first two meetings in the process to create a new Willapa Management Plan are done. The first was a "open house " for the public. Second was for the AD HOC Committee created by the agency to " advise " them. Strange as it sounds both meetings were very similar as both were informational only and the agency took input, sorta, maybe, kinda. So here we go from my notes.


October 27, 2014 AD HOC Willapa Advisers

* Right out of the door the Commercials wanted to know just why WDFW had added five individuals to the AD HOC group rather than just use the past " advisers." Which by the way are dominated by non local Rec and commercial fishers.

* Region 6 Manager Steve Theisfeld gave a run down on the process and explained it well I think. No support from the commercials here. In addition Steve said the current Willapa Plan had not been formally adopted. Now that I am not sure of as staff ( including the Director ) has said it was so a little drama. Steve outlined mandates that govern WDFW which are laws passed by the legislators and are RCW's. The other leg is the Washington Administrative Code ( WAC ). From these directives WDFW sets time / place / manner of harvest.

* Next up Steve outlined the internal agency processes. The Commission creates broad guidelines and the agency develops actions to implement and comply with Commission Direction.

* The HSRG Guidelines to be implemented by 2015 were addressed as was the directive to protect wild stocks. The gillnetter position articulated was Willapa has no native or wild or natural origin recruits so kill them all. No need to conserve.

At this point Steve asked each member of the AD HOC Committee to put forth the single most pressing issue in their view. So here we go.

* Manage Resource for ALL citizens equitably.
* Raise as many fish as possible and harvest all so no surplus. ( wipe out )
*Viable runs of NOR fish in all major Willapa streams including Bear R.
*Develop a plan that is sustainable.
* Research and develop alternate gear. ( not supported by the commercials )
* Increase Rec opportunity by limiting commercial time on the water.
* This is a load of BS and confusing.
* Want Willapa to be the poster child for how to raise fish and harvest them.
* The need exist to evaluate the component stocks.
* Sustainable harvest.
* Large scale hatchery and harvest no need for NOR or Wild stocks.
* Maximum hatchery production especially Chum.
* Maximum sustainable economic value for harvest while meeting conservation objectives.
* Address ocean interception. Ron Warren explained the issue and pretty much painted a gloomy picture. One of the truly low points as no recognition that WDF&W HAS LET THIS HAPPEN.
* Commission will have the final say on the plan and not the AD HOC advisers.
* No single recommendation to the Commission but rather a menu to choose from.
* Willapa hatchery practices and production problematic.
* Selective fishing methods with alternate gear. ( again not supported by commercials )

So there you are my notes from the AD HOC Committee meeting, meeting #2 of the Willapa Management Plan process.

This is letter that came in my e mail and as it is written by a Willapa resident and Rec fisher so I thought I would put it up. Some very good points in it, especially the reduction in Chinook size. Most folks do not stop and look at the issue from a purely unbiased view. I remember Harry Senn asking me two questions as a learning exercise. How do you turn a robust hatchery stock into a smaller not so robust fish. Answer is use a large net that allows a much higher percentage of small fish into escapement. Next was how do you turn a robust Coho stock into a infamous non biter fish? Answer is you reuse the stock generation after generation ( this applies to wild stocks also ) and harvest the aggressive fish by Recs which will get you a uncooperative Coho. Cause and effect thing.

Anyhow the letter is a interesting perspective.

February 22, 2013

Fish and Wildlife Commission Members,

WDFW policy has diminished many recreational fishing opportunities all over the State by allowing commercial over harvest, Willapa Bay is an example. For many years it was a struggle but both commercial and sport fishers got a decent season at the annual salmon meetings. During this period the commercial season usually started in mid September. If there was a large run forecast they might get one or two days before mid September. It seemed to be maximum harvest because they went 6 consecutive years without chinook egg take goal at the hatcheries.

In 2010 things changed dramatically, WDFW dispensed with any pretense of fairness. They held private meetings with the gill netters before each of the last two meetings. They ignored pleas by the sport fishers and the Westport Chamber of Commerce and increased the gill netting significantly. Sport fishing dollars are very important to the businesses of the surrounding area. People come from all over Washington and the U.S. to fish Willapa Bay.

At this time they also ruled that commercial and sport fishers could keep only hatchery salmon. The hatcheries started with chinook stock from the river they are on. There is no native run to protect. There is no good reason for this rule. We feel they are trying to discourage sport fishing. It is especially hard for children to release the biggest fish they ever caught. It is a terrible waste of food when you add up sport fishing wild release mortality and gill net mortality of the salmon which they figure at 45% for every wild fish netted and released. In 2010 over 1000 wild chinook and more than 9500 wild coho were wasted. This rule and the increased netting is not conserving naturally spawning fish, it is decimating them.

It is also a big waste of money. WDFW spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies and then ignores them. What they are doing on Willapa Bay is not sustainable. In 2011 WDFW increased the gill netting further. 2009 commercial chinook catch was 6,471, 2010 was 9,039 including special permit “test fishery” and wild mortality. In 2011, the total commercial kill was about 21,600, this is more than three times the last ten year average of 6,422. Commercial fishers threw overboard 2700 dead or dying wild chinook. In 2009, commercial fishing hours before Sept 15 were zero, in 2012 they were given 144. They took 9726 chinook plus mortality. We have had some good run size but this is way beyond common sense.

At the last 2011 salmon meeting there were few sport representatives. They felt their presence was meaningless after their 2010 experience. The WDFW also changed the location of a Willapa and Grays Harbor meeting without proper notification. We thought this was their way of saying we weren’t wanted. We want to stress that these are good, very competent, very knowledgeable people. Prior to 2010 we felt that we were treated fairly and had a good relationship with the department. We feel they must be responding to political pressure.

Another problem is the chinook salmon are getting smaller with intensive gillnetting. The small fish slip through the nets, altering the genetics. Sport fishers would like to see them pick the bigger fish to reproduce at the hatcheries to counteract this. They would need a surplus to do this. The DFW says they need diversity but this is a false diversity because of this straining effect. We sincerely hope you can help with these problems.

First this:
"At this time they also ruled that commercial and sport fishers could keep only hatchery salmon. The hatcheries started with chinook stock from the river they are on. There is no native run to protect. There is no good reason for this rule."

Then:
"In 2010 over 1000 wild chinook and more than 9500 wild coho were wasted. This rule and the increased netting is not conserving naturally spawning fish, it is decimating them."

Then:
"Commercial fishers threw overboard 2700 dead or dying wild chinook"

I'm confused...

JustBecause,

It is confusing. The hatcheries on Willapa Bay tributaries generally used the chinook native to their home stream as hatchery broodstock, except Nemah because it had few native chinook. Then since the 1960s Willapa Bay has been managed as a terminal area hatchery stock wipe out fishery. This imposes very high harvest rates on whatever native wild salmon stocks remained, basically extirpating them. Wild chinook in Willapa are the product of hatchery chinook spawning in the natural environment. These are the wild chinook being impacted in the sport and commercial fishery. WDFW is trying to restore a wild chinook run in the Naselle River, but it isn't a good fit with the management model that is trying to have all the hatchery surplus chinook harvested in gillnets. They've got something of a "can't get there from here" situation going on.

Hopefully less confusing now.

Sg

So let me see if I understand.

The Willapa Bay hatchery Chinook came from the native Chinook populations within each of the tribs, except for Nemah. There are still Chinook in the Willapa, mostly hatchery fish or progeny of hatchery fish, which came from the native populations. So how are the fish that are now produced (hatchery and natural) in the Willapa basins non-native again?

Also, the Naselle Hatchery is no longer releasing millions of Chinook salmon. Additionally, the fisheries have changed in the last few years to reduce the Bay harvest rate on Naselle Chinook.

Also, I'm not confused about what goes on in the Willapa, it's more my confusion with other people understanding of it.

JustBecause,

No one is saying Willapa chinook are not native. They are preponderantly native all right. Just as they are preponderantly hatchery origin, with some wild that are the offspring of hatchery chinook spawning in the natural environment.

Confusion is easy, especially when so many folks are not careful with their descriptive language when speaking and writing about various salmon populations.

Sg

In recent days the rumor mill regarding the Non Treaty Gillnetters screaming their lungs out that fish making it to the hatchery or gravel being and being wasted ( not killed and sold by them ) has been out and about. A number of folks have been tracking this issue and for my part I was waiting for the end of October hatchery escapements to be posted. Well they have and this total load of BS is outlined below in my letter to the Commission. I imagine at some point in time the NT Commercials fishers will emerge from the darl ages but I am not going to hold my breath.


November 1, 2014

WD&W Commission
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1099
1111 Washington Street S.E., Olympia, WA 98504

Commissioners,

I am writing to update the Commission regarding another success of the recently implemented Grays Harbor Management Plan. ( GHMP ) It resides in the Wishkah River sub basin and some history is required to fully explain the success.

The Wishkah River is a Southern Olympic stream that flows into the Chehalis at Aberdeen near the 101 Bridge or downtown Aberdeen. With a long history usage dating back to the time of pioneers it had declined to such a state of affairs that by the 1990's the local community and then Senator Brad Owen ( our current Lt. Governor ) was able convince the former Northwest Renewable Resource Center to use it for a pilot program to restore Chinook & Coho. The pilot project became Long Live the Kings ( LLTK ) located at what is the Mayr Hatchery. While the LLTK project did have some success it struggled do to a very high exploitation rate by both Tribal and non tribal nets. It was a victim of its location as tribal and non treaty commercial fishers pretty much corked off the river for years.

With the GHMP requiring 3 net free days ( 4/3 ) myself and others wondered just how the Wishkah would perform. Would the window of non net time be enough to overcome the ravages of the past and neglect by WDF&W? My bet was on yes / maybe but the answer appears to be resounding yes, which came as a somewhat of a surprise. Just as its location worked against the river for years it reversed with 4/3. How one can ask and the answer again is location. In the Chehalis tidewater reach all three species of salmon stage going into a holding pattern after transitioning from salt to fresh water waiting for the fall rains. The river staging reach primarily runs from the 101 bridge to what is known as Pump House ( former water intake for the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Plant ) about 15 miles upstream. In this reach the Quinault Nation has its commercial fishers as well as the NT Commercial at the lower end of tidewater. The combination of the two commercial fisheries and WDF&W's steadfast refusal to modify the Non Treaty harvest to allow protection of the Wishkah needed due to its unique location was most devastating to the fish and Recreational fishers.

So what does this have to do with 4/3 and the Wishkah? Well frankly everything. Wishkah fish do not stage in the Chehalis as the fish from most the Chehalis tributary streams do but rather in the tidewater reach of the Wishkah itself. Simply put they are able avoid the harvest levels applied on the other Chehalis tributaries because of the location of the mouth of the Wishkah River on the Chehalis main stem as 4/3 allows fish into the Wishkah tidal staging reaches. The difference this makes can be seen in the 2014 hatchery returns as of October 30, 2014. Bingham and Satsop Springs on the East Fork Satsop have had a combined return of approximately 11,893 Coho as of October 30th while Mayr Hatchery on the Wishkah has had returns of 9,729 Coho. Commissioners the production of Mayr Coho is fraction of that of the two facilities on the Satsop and the difference in returns is simply the exploitation rate applied by the QIN and WDF&W managed NT commercial fisheries on the mainstream Chehalis River. The benefit of restricting NT Commercial harvest to the Wishkah River has been dramatic and undeniable with the hatchery returns. Additionally the number of Wild Coho reaching the spawning reaches will benefit just as much or more. I am sure the NT commercial gillnetters will complain and call this a waste but frankly Commissioners the NT Commercial concept of the only good fish is a dead fish, in a gillnet, in a tote, being sold ended with the new GHMP.

In closing Commissioners the tide water reach of the Wishkah was once the best " Mom & Pop " recreational fishery in the Chehalis Basin. If a boat floated folks put it in the river and trolled the tidewater. Not much skill needed just a rod, spinner and something that floated with a motor! I believe the Wishkah will continue to rebuild with 4/3 and return substantial benefits to the local recreational community. Just as importantly Commissioners 4/3 has emerged as the safety net for the Wishkah Wild Salmon stocks that have been brutalized by the Chehalis Basin combined Maximum Sustained Yield ( MSY ) harvest modeling that resulted in overharvest of the Wishkah and several Chehalis tributary streams for so many years.

I am not sure what one can or should say to the Commission at this point except thank you. Your courage and vision of implementing the GHMP and 4/3 is paying dividends far beyond expectations.

You gotta love this! After allowing the NT Nets in Willapa to take nearly 68,000 blowing the harvest model apart with more season to come WDF&W now looks to the Recs to conserve? You gotta be joking! Ah your tax dollars at work.


WDFW FISHING RULE CHANGE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov

October 31, 2014

Reduce retention limit to no more
than two wild coho in Naselle River

Action: Only two wild coho many be retained as part of the daily limit.

Effective dates: Nov. 1, 2014 through Jan. 31, 2015.

Species affected: Salmon.

Location: Naselle River from Hwy 101 Bridge to the Crown Mainline (Salme) Bridge.

Daily limits: Daily limit six fish. Up to three may be adult salmon, of which only two may be wild coho. Release wild Chinook.

Reason for action: Provide additional protection for the late wild coho.

Other information: Anglers should refer to the Sport fishing Rules 2014/2015 pamphlet edition, Fishing in Washington, for other ongoing fishing opportunities.

Information Contact: Mike Scharpf (360) 249-1205, Mike.scharpf@dfw.wa.gov or Steve Thiesfeld (360) 249-1201, Steve.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov .

Just when you think it is safe to go in the water, this:

The CES said they were changing the reg from the CR 102 to incorporate G------- request to cut bag from 3-1 and they moved down to 2. However, the CR103P filed with the language didn't have the changes in it and the bag limit remained at 3 in the WAC itself and the pamphlet that had already gone to print. Now, just like they did with Ross's retain one chum problem that is a mirror of this latest event, they use an E-reg to get the WAC rule to reflect the CES and that decision. Here we go again with Dist. 17 staff having problems processing the regulatory paperwork.

Now OK after they violated 4/3 in GH now this in Willapa. Gotta love jobs with no performance standards!

They have standards and expectations. That's why they are still there. they meet or exceed expectations.

You're just looking for different standards.

Well this was meeting #2 for the public. The meeting went OK I guess but staff struggled to communicate with a lady who by name is associated with a gillnetters family. Nice lady I guess but it was like watching the agency explain the world in 2014 to someone who just woke up and thought it was 1930. This is expected I guess but lord there are days when I hope the citizens associated with the NT Net Commercials catch up not to this century ( I have given up on that ) but someplace midway through the last. Oh well ................. here ya go and keep in mind these are my notes from my perspective!

Willapa Management Plan Public Meeting Nov 1, 2014

Introductions Staff & the public participants

Review AD HOC Committee meeting.

Objectives:
*Side tracked to how come the reduction from 3 to 2 on the Naselle for Recs.
*On to newspaper add comparing Gillnetters to coal strip mining. Again the lady from the gillnetters family was upset.
* Did review the objectives kinda / sorta / maybe.

Process:
*The information provided to the WDF&W Commission Fish Committee was provided to the public.
*Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld outlined the process thus far and what the future meetings schedule will look like.
*Not all the meeting sites for the Commission meetings have been secured and are a work in progress.
* The Commission meeting 11/8/2014 is at the NRB Building in Olympia and off we went again all over the world.

Summary of poll taken at the first public meeting:
*Citizens labeled the questions misleading ( which they were ) and wondered if accuracy even existed. ( real low point here folks as staff really stank up the place on this bit. Poll was pure BS )
* Chum management and the definition of aggregate to Recs ..... this one just took off all over the place and was basically wasted time.

Commercial input on poll:
*The use of ex vessel value to define commercial seasons and the commercials want 900,000 a year. For those not familiar ex vessel is the value of the catch of the fleet. Now this one went everyplace but the jest was the commercials wanted a maximum guaranteed value to their catch. Just so all know under the current Director that is how Willapa is managed.
*From the Rec perspective the agency pretty much just run them off with the manner they set seasons.
*The process is bizarre and one can hardly believe what they see.
*Strong objections to ex vessel value being a objective.

Recreation input on poll:
*Support alternative gear 75% to 100% Rec / zero to 10% Commercial.
* NO 2T Commercial anytime anyhow.
*Economic value of Rec fishers is misrepresented. Steve Theisfeld did his best to explain but pretty much fell on deaf ears.
*In new plan split Willapa into two management zone ( similar to GH and the Chehalis & Humptulips ) North Willapa / North River / Smith Creek & South Naselle / Nemah / others. Remove commercials from 2T for good.
* Present a true Rec value in harvest.

Apparitional Objectives ( wish list ) This went NOT well as conflict while civilized showed the huge gap between Rec & Commercial views:
* Chinook in current hatchery configuration are a no go.
*Coho & Chum maybe OK but issues all over.
*Harvest to be divided 60 commercial / 40 Rec on Coho & Chinook
*Move run timing for Coho two weeks later. Came from a commercial and sorta speechless on this one.
* Change Chinook run timing from the same commercial.
* Enhance Rec opportunity.
*Nutrient Enhancement should be a priority.
*Make Forks Creek ( Willapa ) primary stream.
*Forks Creek has a weir and a second upstream that could be refurbished. Now the but .. . no weir on main stem river ( Willapa ) and Chinook swim right by Forks Creek.
* Substantial funding needed to address straying issue on Naselle & Willapa.
*If Forks Cr. ( Willapa ) is primary stream then Commercials out of U & 2T.
*Split Willapa North & South / No 2T Commercial / reduce Forks Cr. production up Naselle.
*Commercial fisheries do not decrease or effect Rec fisheries.
*If split is done Commercial cost ( fuel burn ) would rise making it uneconomical.
*Ron Warren outlined several issues and why Naselle was primary stream. Also explained that surplus hatchery fish are not wasted. Funds generated go to RFEG's and they use it as seed and matching funds to get substantial funds that are utilized primarily for habitat restoration.
*Commission should not make a decision based upon the information provided thus far.
*RW Outlined current plan and explained that a large amount of information is still to come before a Commission decision.
*RW Still working on 2010 plan but it was never formally adopted by the Commission.
*This one needs emphasis: That staff make the Power Point presentation for the 8th Commission meeting public PRIOR to the Commission meeting the 8th so folks can reveiw and prepare prior to the meeting.

As things go around a lot of stuff comes through my e mail and I found this bit that went to Fish Program's Jim Scott. Now it is about the open meetings act and WDF&W's desire to usually ignore it. Back up to the Cabezon bit on the North Coast or just the normal out of site negotiations with commercials. My PDRs produced a lot of documents with the commercials more or less helping staff figure out their seasons. Again many feel this violates the open meeting laws. Now it gets really interesting when you realize the same applies to meetings with the Quinault Nation regarding setting seasons. So read away and draw your own conclusions but I think WDF&W is about to have some more legal problems.

So here is the C&P:

Below a news article about a judge's recent ruling citing the Liquor Control Board for violations of the open meetings law by holding meeting with local officials and stakeholders behind closed doors out of the public's view as it develops WACs. My reading of the article finds the court ruling aligns with our long-stated position that the Dept's historical used of "advisers" and meetings with officials and advocates with a stated interest outside public view while engaged in a rule making process is contrary to the standards of transparency. I further point to the adoption of emergency rules at the request of one or more of these "advisers" which has been a common practice of the Department. Then, right beside those two actions comes meetings, etc. behind closed doors with tribal co-managers wherein the public is again blocked from view during the decision making process.

Since the Department has been delegated the decision authority on season setting from the Commission, it is the decision making entity as were the Liquor Control Board members in this instance and the ruling is applicable in my view as follows:
RCW 42.30.030
All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
RCW 42.30.020
(1) "Public agency" means:

(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;
(2) "Governing body" means the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.

When promogating policies, rules and setting seasons, it is my view that the open meeting law applies the Director and Fish Program staff.

I only seek to share information of potential interest. No response to this communication is requested.




Judge: Liquor board broke open meetings law
By GENE JOHNSON
Associated PressNovember 3, 2014


SEATTLE — The Washington Liquor Control Board broke the state's open public meetings law 17 times as it began working on rules for the recreational marijuana industry, a judge ruled.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller issued the ruling Friday in a case brought by Arthur West, a critic of the legal pot law. The judge said that although the board broke the law, it didn't take any actions at the meetings that would warrant throwing out the marijuana rules it eventually adopted.

The meetings at issue came in the first three months of 2013, soon after voters approved Initiative 502. As the three board members — Sharon Foster, Chris Marr and Ruthann Kurose — traveled around the state holding public hearings about the legal marijuana rules, they also sometimes met quietly with local police, officials and prevention groups.

"In the early months following passage of I-502, there were many questions about what legalization meant for local communities," board spokesman Brian Smith said in an email Monday. "When Board members traveled around the state to hold public forums, they took time to meet with representatives of local government, law enforcement and the prevention community, typically at their request. At these meetings, LCB staff shared the proposed timeline for implementation, explained the process the agency would use for gathering feedback and Board members listened to any concerns."

West said the private nature of the meetings obscured the information the board was working with as it developed the rules, which covered nearly every aspect of the new legal pot industry, from what constitutes a serving size of marijuana to what sorts of security systems licensed pot businesses must have.

"The rest of us didn't get to participate in those meetings or find out what was said," West said. The judge said she would hold a hearing later this month about whether the board members broke the law knowingly. If they did, the board members could each be liable for penalties of $100 per violation, said Michele Earl-Hubbard, a Seattle open-government attorney who is not involved in the case. Judges around the state have been reluctant to void actions taken by agencies over violations of the open meetings act, Earl-Hubbard said. "It doesn't incentivize anybody to follow the law," she said.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/03...1#storylink=cpy

"It doesn't incentivize anybody to follow the law" sums it up pretty well. They (WDFW, other agencies, whomever) will keep on doing whatever they want until forced to stop. Since it costs money to take them them to court, they are betting that they won't get sued.

Well today was the Commission meeting and Willapa was on the Agenda with a public input time after WDF&W's Steve Theisfeld presentation on past and present Willapa fisheries. Steve did a descent job of putting things in perspective. The Commission did set some priorities and direction the effort to redefine goals and objectives which I will put up after getting my notes in order. So below is my testimony I submitted today.


Good morning Commissioners I would like to bring forward several issues in the Willapa Plan restructure effort underway.

First Commissioners is the fact that in the past decade the Willapa communities have sacrificed much to restore salmon. From RMZ setbacks, to reduced timber harvest it has cost them millions of dollars, lost jobs and no economic stability. Controversial in the beginning, most have come to accept the need to restore salmon but Commissioners there is an issue. Those that shouldered the steep price of environmental reform actually thought " salmon restoration " meant that once again salmon would return to the home streams. This has not been the case in many places in the state but in Willapa it has been particularly egregious as harvest impacts have continued to go unabated and in some cases increased. We have an over harvest / under escapement issue in Willapa that must be addressed if the promised " salmon restoration " is to be real reform.


The second issue I wish to address is the simple fact, despite much talk and grandiose plans, little has changed with the hatchery production issue. From HSRG to the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Initiative, and many other conceptual ideas, all direct the agency in the direction of salmon recovery. In Willapa these directives have and continue to be simply ignored. WDF&W verbiage says compliance yet resulting actions paint a far different picture. The current Willapa Plan was supposed to be the answer but it only made things worse. Commissioners the current plan simply failed in all aspects to address hatchery reform or failing escapement of wild stocks. Again the end result being in most cases only making the problem worse. The failure of WDF&W to comply and embrace hatchery reform and natural spawning populations reform in the Willapa is glaring. I urge the Commission to simply confront this issue head on and not skirt it. If this is not done the issues in Willapa will continue to worsen and again return to the Commission for resolution.


My last issue Commissioners is the understanding that the Commissioners have a desire for solutions and not the usual finger pointing and posturing. To accomplish this task the Commission must clearly and without confusion set the direction is to proceed. Frankly if one thought the Grays Harbor Management Plan was difficult to achieve then Willapa can be labeled nearly impossible.
Simply put Natural Origin Recruit Chinook ( NOR ) are declining due massive overharvest, hatchery Chinook straying is substantial, far above any acceptable level in the Willapa, and North River, the last Willapa stream with and any resemblance of the natural order, is not protected. Returning NOR Coho are in a massive decline to near critical levels due to extreme overharvest. Chum stocks have suffered virtually the same overharvest as Chinook & Coho.


So Commissioner tell us the direction and parameters that both the agency and citizens are to utilize in the drafting of the new Willapa Plan. It is the necessary first step.

Steve Theisfeld started things out with a presentation to the Commission outlining issues and history in Willapa fisheries. Then the Commission Fish Committee put forth guidance in rather short order. So here it is and more to come but at last we know the direction we are headed. Keep in mind these are my notes from my perspective so hopefully I did not miss anything.

1. The Commission Fish Committee would like to see multiple options and review them prior to presentation to the AD HOC Willapa Advisers. ( and public )

2. Prioritize Chinook for Recreational fishers. Coho & Chum for commercial.

3. A option should be divide Willapa into two regions. North to be for Rec and South Commercial.

4. Alter hatchery production so Willapa ( Forks Creek hatchery ) is Chinook and Coho and Chum are South hatcheries.

5. Need to look at Chum enhancement.

6. To look at user funded programs such as Alaska Private Non Profit ( PNP ) for similar programs for the South Bay.

7. The Willapa hatcheries will comply with HSRG guidelines.

The whole discussion can be watched here...

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014110018