Recently I filed a PDR ( Public Document Request ) regarding communications concerning the Grays Harbor Management Plan Redo. I took this action as I was having difficulty getting frank responses from WDF&W to questions which is not acceptable. Once / twice / thrice I will accept duplicity / evasion / stone walling but after three it is a PDR time. So below is the compilation of public comments unfiltered ( at least by me ) and it will give everyone the wide range of views that citizens have.

I must say though that in this and other documents my favorite was the commercial fisher who identified 77,000 sport fishers should not get a greater allocation of harvest than a few hundred ( in GH about 25 ) commercial fishers. Seems they can not fathom that the tribal catches ARE COMMERCIAL fisheries. This Indian / White Boy thing needs to be put away, once and for all!!

So here you go the Washington citizen comments on Grays Harbor Management. ( condensed by WDF&W )




11 January 2014

Summary of public comment regarding draft Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy.




Included below are excerpts from written comment received between October 21, 2013 and January 9, 2014, and verbal testimony summarized from the December 7, 2013 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting. Comments have not been edited for content or to correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation.

Comments were summarized into ten (10) categorizes including: allocation, alternative fishing practices, communication/transparency, conservation, data rigor, economic value, enforcement/accountability, hatcheries, limit effort, and miscellaneous.

Categories are collated by major reason for which the policy is needed (Enhance Conservation Focus, Restore and Maintain Public Trust, and Clarify Sharing of Impacts), followed by a section with remaining categories.

Enhance Conservation Focus

Conservation
• The state wants to kill down to the last fish. We need to think about conservation.
• Calculated in FRAM down to the last fish the bycatch to the last fish.
• complete closures have been implemented before and the fish come back. It that is what it takes fine. It comes down to conservation. We need the fish in the gravel.
• ESCAPEMENT GOALS and SALMON CONSERVATION must be the #1 Priority. Once the resource is gone, everyone loses.
• Escapement ,We must meet escapement goals each and every year. This is imperative to the survival of the fish that swim and spawn in these waters. Any type or length of fishery should always be secondary. I am well aware that this could mean on lean years that we do not have a directed fishery by anyone and if that is what it takes then so be it.
• It was abundantly clear from the vast majority of attendees that consevation of Grays Harbor wild salmon is their highest priority. Several topics were included within the conservation umbrella; opposition to the Chehalis River dam, ocean-derived nutrition, harvest management and more.
• The state is driving to ESA.
• As for Conservation, everyone needs to do their part.
• My big thing is in-season management. I think conservation needs to be the top priority, even if it limits my opportunity to fish ensuring that over-forecasting doesn't have to result in overharvest, and subsequently missed escapements.
• This fishery must have season checks and balances to ensure that we do not over harvest on any given year
• Guiding Principles Item 14; When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation
benefits. Everytime the WDFW feels that the selective harvest is expected to impact fishery escapements goals, the fishery is shut down, but it's only shut down to sport fisherman and not tribal/commerical havesting.
Escapement goals are not being met, yet we allow the tribal fisheries to run nets 7+ days a week which has a much greater impact on returning salmon than any sportsman catch.

• At the heart of the current difficulties is not just rec v commercial but rather the inland communities citizens growing and adamant opposition to the failure to make escapement and the practice of WDF&W awarding the vast majority of harvest taking place in the marine area communities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.
• concerned about failure of Reg 6 management. Not making escapement.
• Continuing to fail for the last 10 years.
• Escapement goals are not being met.
• for too many years too many fishermen taking too many fish.
• Blatant overharvest by the QIN, particularly Chinook. Late coho and steelhead are in a similar state as Chinook.
• Millions of dollars have been spent by tax payers and Logging companies to create more habitat yet WDFW has not increased any Escapement Goals, provided more fish to the gravel, increased wild populations, to match the third largest watershed on the Pacific Coast on the United States. I see some great opportunities to increase fish populations in this wild river system that is capable of providing a better future of this resource.
• The people of our state have invested a lot in enhancing habitat for salmon yet Region 6 has been content to leave goals low and then seldom meet them. In a region which has been satisfied and enjoyed management job security while missing escapement goals for Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay 9/10 of the time, a culture change would be needed.
• 30 years of experience in the legislative projects. I have worked on habitat recovery and still no fish in Wildcat Creek.
• Unfortunately, too little time was provided for indepth discussion regarding policies to achieve wild salmon recovery in Grays Harbor and its tributaries - far too much time was again consumed for allocation discussions
• If you are concentrating on the escapement maybe you should start in the ocean fishery. You don’t want to admit to the amount of fish you are allowing to be killed in the “catch ten and release to keep one fishery”.
• Article about Alaska Kenai Salmon - "Catch and release practices prevent many salmon from reaching a spawning location or result in poor spawning success."
• For the recreational fishery in Grays Harbor I would like you to consider the following: Any year there are not enough chinook to have a retention fishery that area 2.2 from the Chehalis River bridge (highway 101) to the mouth of Johns River (piling number 8) be closed to all fishing before the first of October. This is needed to save chinook salmon from over harvest via hook and release. Large numbers of fishers show up to see how many chinook they can catch in one day even though they release them. One fisher bragged to me they caught 17 chinooks in one day when it was non retention only.
• The spring chinook fishery is a joke. The only reason the tribe fishes for spring chinook is to harvest wild steelhead that are returning. This practice need to STOP!
• If CTRC is the non-treaty tribes then this draft does not allow a non-treaty spring Chinook fishery in the Chehalis River system. I support no non-treaty tribal fishing for spring Chinook in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis river system.
• Another issue I have is why is ANY spring salmon fishery of any kind allowed on the Chehalis River system?

Limit effort
• I would like to state for the record that I believe that until you curtail the tribal fishery it will be of little use to keep restricting the non tribal fishers.
• One partial solution is to LIMIT GUIDES AND CHARTER OPERATORS TO A SINGLE TRIP PER DAY. It would probably be prudent to have logbooks for guides to get a more accurate reporting of the true catches for salmon, sturgeon, steelhead and walleye.
• A quicker and more effective option would be to use a “drawing” similar to elk harvesting wherein a preset number of license holders will be granted the ability to fish in the upcoming season. While the number of fishers active each season would decrease, establishing a drawing avoids seasons where all the participants suffer when sales of fish caught “….didn’t cover the cost of the diesel”.
• for too many years too many fishermen taking too many fish.

Alternative fishing practices
• We must require sustainable forms of fishing. Currently Recreational fisherman utilize barbless hooks and selective or non-selective fishing as a means of ensuring the right fish are taken at the right times. Entanglement nets are not a sustainable fishing method.
• Make everyone even that's commercial fishermen go back to hook and line
• Following the example set in harvesting razor clams, crab, and shrimp, we propose that WDFW consider establishing commercial seasons wherein recreational and commercial license holders harvest with the same gear (poles), in the same geographical areas and at the same time throughout the entire season. License fees and bag limits could be adjusted as well. One example would be a commercial license at three times the recreational license and the commercial bag limit at three times the recreational in a corresponding fashion.

Restore and Maintain Public Trust

Communication/ Transparency
• The Grays Hbr. Advisory Committee, WDFW Fish biologists, and GH gill net assoc. should be on record as to their method, data and tools used to recommend the catch sharing percentages for each sector outlined in this "draft". I would like to see fishery decisions in Washington State made on biologically sound information. It appears that political influence now dictates many decisions made by WDFW.
• The public needs to be informed that the catch allowed by the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) comes out of the recreational sector. If the category designated as CTCR in the charts is the non- treaty Chehalis Tribe(s), it needs to be designated as such in the draft policy. Non-treaty catch quota should not be taken from the recreational sector. How can WDFW give the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) a catch percentage when they provide no catch figures to WDFW? My recommendation is "no catch figures", "no fishing".
• The Director and the Region need to bring co-management back to Grays Harbor.
• We need to talk about the QIN. They overharvest year after year. Then tell the state what they are going to do without any say from the state. WDFW needs to take them to court.
• There is no co-management in Grays Harbor. If the state is not fishing then the tribe will.
• WDFW needs to include previous run estimates, escapement goals and final catch statistics for each sector to determine an equitable catch percentage. The percentages "proposed in the draft" , for each sector have no meaning without inclusion of above mentioned data from previous years. The percentages outlined in the draft are meaningless w/o previous data.
• Overall the GH management plan is too vague and unclear. It is good to see a committment for an annual review but there is little mention of metrics against which performance would be measured by the commission. This is a region that has regularly underperformed on escapement goals for multiple species for over a decade.
• The current draft does not have specificity. What we are looking for in the policy are deadlines and goals.
• These guidelines are only a tweaking of the current guidelines. In Willapa there are no co-managers – even with no co-managers the results are the same. Guiding principles, communicate, document, etc. these are not principals they are window dressing.
• I offered comment, those are not in the policy; asked for teeth in the policy they are not there either.
• Comments about communication – with the internet, communication is easy. With short notice through the internet look at all the people who are here.
• Thirdly, All participants in this fishery must meet their obligations to be involved in the process of season setting and ensure that their numbers and dates are published in the proper manner.
• I want to see the Public more involved in the WAC process before North of Falcon. This process has only involved a fee people invited by WDFW. The Commercial Fleet has dominated this process for many years with WDFW supporting them over Conservation. The Tribes are also part of the Commercial harvest and should be regulated in the same process instead of WDFW letting them do what they want.

• The APA process is not being followed. I have spent $10K’s of my money bringing lawsuits against WDFW, and have 1000’s of hours of time invested. The public trust is lost. Kehoe, you said for us to write the document, we did that. None of that is in this document. Don’t close the door or your mind on this.
• far too much time was again consumed for allocation discussions… it amounts to nothing more than a wishing session between the gillnetters and the sporties.

Data Rigor
• The tools the department has is like a butter knife. The first improvement needed is the CRC. Like to see timelier reporting like in the PS crab CRC. Adaptive management, like in PS, monitor the fishery more closely and shut the fishery down when the quota is reached. Need a policy that passes fish to the spawning beds. There is no co- management in Grays Harbor. If the state is not fishing then the tribe will.
• Region 6, forecasts runs before fish hit the hatchery; need to let the fish hit the hatchery then forecast. I fish the Skookumchuck and have seen the enhancements.
• needs to be a framework for in-season management, ensuring that over-forecasting doesn't have to result in overharvest, and subsequently missed escapements.
• Science and biology should drive management.
• Calculated in FRAM down to the last fish the bycatch to the last fish. Then set the season in days. The mortality percentages - 45% is not in the Columbia studies. The study is only long-term, where is the short term? Other studies should be reviewed.
• The current Management plan and models for the Chehalis Basin and Willapa Basin are not acceptable anymore and out dated. Millions of dollars have been spent by tax payers and Logging companies to create more habitat yet WDFW has not increased any Escapement Goals, provided more fish to the gravel, increased wild populations, to match the third largest watershed on the Pacific Coast on the United States.

Enforcement /accountability
• The sports fisherman are getting more and more of the allocation every season. The sports fishers are not being held accountable for their catches as we the commercial fisheries are being held accountable for every fish harvested.
• Anglers on guide trips would also furnish license numbers to the guide to record days fished and actual catches to avoid cheating on the annual limits.Daily recording in the logbook should be mandatory and all entries should be made within 24 hours of the trip completion. Alaska uses this system but when boat launch areas are super busy then it is easy to forget to complete the log on site and a 24 hour allowance for recording final catch info would be fair. AK imposed fines for non completion on site and that was strictly a revenue operation and lead to many confrontations between guides and enforcement personnel.
• Selective fishing if its going to happen it needs to follow scientifically designed procedures and protocols. In Grays Harbor they violate all internationally recognized rules.
• They need to fish selectively like they have been trained.
• It was also made clear that there is considerable support for increasing the number of WDFW enforcement officers in order to maximise conservation efforts to recover Grays Harbor wild salmon
• there is considerable support for increasing the number of WDFW enforcement officers in order to maximise conservation efforts to recover Grays Harbor wild salmon.
• The public needs to be informed that the catch allowed by the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) comes out of the recreational sector. If the category designated as CTCR in the charts is the non- treaty Chehalis Tribe(s), it needs to be designated as such in the draft policy. Non-treaty catch quota should not be taken from the recreational sector. How can WDFW give the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) a catch percentage when they provide no catch figures to WDFW? My recommendation is "no catch figures", "no fishing".
• We need to monitor the Quinault’s and take them to court.

Clarify Sharing of Impacts

Allocation
• 77,000 people sport fish salmon in the state of Washington (1.1%); the commercial fishers provide fish to the rest of the state. Allocation should be 50:50 on all species.
• In the survey the sports zeroed out commercial allocation. Sport have lots of opportunity statewide.
• I fully support the non-treaty commercial salmon fishing in Grays Harbor. Generations of families in Grays Harbor have been supported by the salmon gilnetting season - I strongly encourage you to consider those families - it's very important to them.
• I have been a gillnetter for over forty years. In the 70s we would get to fish from the 6th of July till sometime in November. The fleet of boats was over four times what it is today. We had a very valuble sport fishery during those times also.
• I support the non-tribal commercial salmon fishery in Grays Harbor. The non-tribal commercial salmon fishery is vital to many families in our area. Please keep this is mind when determining future allotment of our resources.
• There are other fisheries in GH, we need to be mindful of the share that comes to the state. That is the portion that should be fairly distributed to sport and commercial fisheries. The sports emphasize that there are two fisheries; sport and commercial - and that commercial include the tribes.
• The sports fisherman are getting more and more of the allocation every season. The sports fishers are not being held accountable for their catches as we the commercial fisheries are being held accountable for every fish harvested. Washington gives the tribal fishers 58% of the allocation. Start there. The commercial catch is nominal compared to the tribal and the sports fishers
• The Chehalis side should have a small amount of Chinook set aside for the commercial to access to coho. There are large surplus of coho – hatchery and natural both.
• Divide the catches of Chinook equally between the recreationals and gillnetters for wild chinook. Since wild coho has been the run of concern for the last several years they will be used as incidentals during chinook and chum fisheries. Impacts to be used when run size is below escapement goal will be divided 60% gillnetters and 40% recreationals. The only exception to this is if the run size is 156% greater than the escapement goal then there could be a directed wild coho fishery divided 60% recreationals and 40% gillnetters. Between 110% and 156% of escapement goal the wild coho will be divided 60% recreational and 40% gillnetters. Hatchery chinook
and hatchery coho will be taken during other Humptulips fisheries.
• The goals for recreational fishing involving "experience" or "opportunity" are inappropriate. We are already seeing this concept being abusedd in plans for alternative gear elsewhere in the Columbia. OR officials are talking about closing sport fishing during peaks of runs to allow enough mark selective commercial harvest using purse seines! Sports not to worry, you will get extra days during off peak run times. Seines get the harvest, sports get the "experince" of more fishing with less opportunity per day. This is how sports fishing is to be minimized, along with its superior econiomic benefits. The draft guidelines need to be changed to prevent this approach in Region 6.
• They should not be fishing more than 3 days / week. They are taking huge sections out of the run.
• the commercial gill nets should be in the water one day less than what it was this year. Ive been keeping an eye on the nets in the river because I drive over the Chehalis river bridge in Aberdeen every day and have seen nets in the river, either commercial or native american, 5 days a week. That is unacceptable for recreational fishing because when they take the nets out on Friday, it takes a while for those fish can get through to get up the river to where bank fisherman can have some fun and try and catch some salmon to allay the exorbitant cost for the license. I have no problem paying the license cost but expect the recreational fishery to be given more emphasis.
• One good thing is to allow 3 d/wk without nets. Need a change in the current conscious approach. End of year review – compared to what? Need more in the policy.
• Support 3 days/week proposal for net free.

• The 3 day proposal for net free; what does that mean? The treaty fishery is already fishing 4 days/week, does this leave the NT fleet sitting on the beach?
• The rec option offered 3 days sport and 4 days commercial. The Commercial won’t offer a compromise. Recreation is willing to have days on and days off.
• Tribal and commerical netting should only be allowed on a Sun (1200) - Thursday (1200) during the fishery. If the catch goals are not met, extensions or additional netting days can be addressed and granted, but only after escapement data is reviewed.
• I want to see the Public more involved in the WAC process before North of Falcon. This process has only involved a fee people invited by WDFW. The Commercial Fleet has dominated this process for many years with WDFW supporting them over Conservation. The Tribes are also part of the Commercial harvest and should be regulated in the same process instead of WDFW letting them do what they want.
• Similarly, it was very clear that future, non-treaty salmon harvests should be guided by the greatest benefit to cost ratio - from the data shared this evening it seems that recreational fishing accounts for far greater revenue to Washington state than does the commercial sector.
• At the heart of the current difficulties is not just rec v commercial but rather the inland communities citizens growing and adamant opposition to the failure to make escapement and the practice of WDF&W awarding the vast majority of harvest taking place in the marine area communities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.
• The QIN fishery represents more than a meaningful commercial opportunity, and it should be the only one they are obligated to allow. I would like to state for the record that I believe that until you curtail the tribal fishery it will be of little use to keep restricting the non tribal fishers.
• Commercial netting should be stopped immediately within Grays Harbor and its tributaries. This is an outdated practice that is not sustainable today in this location due to overharvest and impacts on sensitive species as
it does not allow of selective release listed groups of fish. Addtionally there is not the abundance of fish in Grays Harbor that allow this practice to continue. The economic benefit of having a strong sport fishery in Grays harbor and its tributaries far out weigh the small benefit that harvesting the remaining fish by commercial fisherman
• The public has repeatedly stated that a tribal net or a non-tribal net is a commercial net under state law. The legislative mandate of the Commission and department states, "The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state." (RCW 77.04.012). You will notice the law does not require the Department to provide three commercial fishing opportunities based on tribal affiliation. The attached AGO shows the Attorney General was asked if a non-tribal commercial fisherman who opted to take the buyout could sell the boat back to a tribal fisherman. The AG opined that a tribal fisherman was a commercial fisherman under state law and such could not be done. Since the Chehalis and the Quinault commercial fishing takes approximately 58% of the available harvest in Grays Harbor, the mandate is fulfilled without the Department imposing yet another third commercial fishery.
• The inland community does not perceive a difference between the commercials. This ain’t Mobile Alabama 1963 the state needs to get over it, the tribes have the right to take their fish.
• Steady decline in the Chehalis. You see that there are two different gillnets, this is one fishery. We are fishing behind all these nets. There should be a focus on one netting season – 60:40 commercial.
• Two fishing interests – rec and commercial. Both interests desire the maximum allotted to them. The commercials scoop hundreds, the recs use one hook, and can only keep two.
• Economics we important, look at where the money comes from; you are supporting a welfare system for the GH commercial fleet.
• Allocation should be developed on science not public opinion. It needs to be understood that nets are not in the water 24hrs / day, the fish get through. Sound fishery science.

Other

Economic value
• Commercial value does not account for 1000’s of coho that go un-harvested.
• Increasing the sales price of the fish harvested commercially would provide compensation for the reduced harvest volume. WDFW should consider eliminating the would allow the commercial license holders the ability to market the fish caught at retail (i.e.commercially in its seasons in Grays Harbor be sold at wholesale to a licensed fish buyer. This requirement that fish caught “Fresh Tuna” on the dock in Westport, fresh salmon at the farmer’s market in Olympia, etc.).
• I'm a sportfishing guide based out of Olympia. I spend the majority of my days fishing in the Chehalis Basin. A dependable season would make my job much easier. I can book trips without fear of in season shutdowns.
• I look at things in terms of money. Are you getting your numbers up? That is an investment. If we are not getting fish back then why are we spending the money?
• The economic benefit of having a strong sport fishery in Grays harbor and its tributaries far out weigh the small benefit that harvesting the remaining fish by commercial fisherman.
• Also, the economic impacts do help the local economy in a big way My clients, for a two person trip pay me around $175 a person for a days fishing. Many people come from out of the area, spending money on motels, dinner, lunch and assorted other items plus licensing. This benefits many in the local area. I also try and buy my supplies locally as well as fuel and my licensing. Thanks for taking this into account when looking at fishings impacts to the local economy.
• recreational fishery has more economic value than the commercial fishery (at least that is what your data suggests even though you say that it is not comparable to commercial data), that the commercial gill nets should be in the water one day less than what it was this year.
• it was very clear that future, non-treaty salmon harvests should be guided by the greatest benefit to cost ratio - from the data shared this evening it seems that recreational fishing accounts for far greater revenue to Washington state than does the commercial sector
• Economics we important, look at where the money comes from; you are supporting a welfare system for the GH commercial fleet.
• I am writing to express my interest in the Grays Harbor non treaty gillnet fishery. South Bend Products purchases a large percentage of the harvested fish from Grays Harbor. The fishery produces high quality fish that are marketed throughout the country. Please consider the fact that in addition the income the fishery provides to the fisherman, it provides jobs to on- site buyers and crew, truck drivers, plant workers and office staff. Reduction or elimination of the non-treaty fishery is a reduction of jobs in Gray’s Harbor and Pacific Counties. I would appreciate your consideration of maintaining the non treaty fishing opportunities in Gray’s Harbor.
• The GN licenses actively used are about 50% of those sold. You could cut that by 50% again and you might have viable fishery.
• late 1970-80’s commercial buyback. The commission mandate in state law is to maintain the viability of the fishing industry.
• sport fishery $1.5M, in current dollars is close to $2M.

Hatcheries
• We also need to restore the hatchery production that has been lost.
• Also you have to fertilize the River you have to put the salmon carcasses back in the River to fertilize the River, most of the rivers are stale and dead now because they have not had the salmon carcasses that the bugs need to feed on. Let's revive the rivers. Then also put as many fish in the River as possible. Then it would make no difference whether it was a hatchery fish are wild spawned fish it would be in the River and you'd have as many fish as you need.

• As for the hatchery's put the hatchery's at full speed raise as many fish as possible get them in the River, it doesn't have to be a year later after they have attached, put them in immediately.
• enhancing the Salmon returning to Grays Harbor. I only see maintaining what we have now.

Miscellaneous
• Neither current escapement goal methodology nor eelgrass management practices by WDFW take into account the natural carrying capacity of these bays
• Region 6 has been content to leave goals low and then seldom meet them. In a region which has been satisfied and enjoyed management job security while missing escapement goals for Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay 9/10 of the time, a culture change would be needed.

Willapa commercial seasons are moving forward. R6 Fish Program Steve Theisfeld is trying get them to folks but a link will be coming. If you want them in a e mail attachment PM me and I will forward them. And yes the commercials are in 2T in mid August for 3 1/2 days along with two other mid areas so yes it will be a clean sweep so plan accordingly as there will not be crap in that bay for 2 1/2 weeks after the debacle !

The link below is to the WDFW rule making page on their website. Always interesting this time around it is even more so and not the CR 103 ( CR 101 starts / CR 102 puts forth a proposal / CR 103 finishes it up with modifications ) but rather the CES. ( Concise Explanatory Statement ) The CES is the legal response to citizen comments and this time around it is not the C&P crap but rather a 41 page item by item response. Now if one does not care to take the time to read it don't but I would urge you to if you fish Willapa or Grays Harbor. This CES was done by the agencies attorney or someone with one hell of a legal mind and as you have the gillnetters threatening to sue if they do not get a wide kill em all fishery on one side and the Advocacy at them on the otherside over the complete collapse and failure of the infamous Willapa Management Plan and the continued destruction of native stocks. Keep in mind the CES has a lot of well thought out information right along with some things that are totally misrepresented followed closely by utter fabrication.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/permanent.html#nof_2014_wb

The Willapa CES on page 32 had this gem. It is the response to a citizen objections to favoritism shown the commercial fisheries. The most disturbing part of this is that Willapa is managed to the commercial side to achieve statewide balance for commercial / Rec. This is utter BS and why Willapa is important to ALL Rec fishers. Now the bit below where the CES more or less says the Commission must agree as they have not objected or provided different guidance. I will us take back several months when the Commission Chair Wecker grilled Mr. Anderson on the issue if the Agency was going to bring Willapa to the Commission for review. Watching Mr. Anderson stammer around trying not to give a direct answer was a classic.

So part of the settlement with the Advocacy was the Agency has to ask the Commission to reopen the Willapa Management Plan. It is about to be ground zero on how you create a management plan that respects natural stocks, protects them, and provide maximum economic benefit on the harvest of hatchery fish. That isn't with a gillnet and the massive economic loss to Pacific County tourism as a destination fishing region has been catastrophic for Pacific County. Nah I doubt if the Commission truly understands what has been done to Willapa during the time Mr. Anderson has been Director but I do believe they are about to learn.


1) Many commenters expressed that the Department did not properly assess the economic value of each fishery sector.

The Department understands there is value in both recreational and commercial fisheries. Commercial fisheries are easier to assess. Market prices and the number of fish caught and sold are known values. Reporting requirement of the commercial fishery allows for quick processing of data. Evaluation of the

recreational fishery isn’t as simple. There are limited creel survey data available for the marine area recreational fishery that could be used to estimate effort and subsequent economic value of the fishery. There are no recent data available for freshwater fisheries in Willapa Bay. In order to make an estimate of effort, the Department would have to make assumptions about individual angler catch rates, likely by using data from other basins.

The Commission North of Falcon policy notes: “Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries” and “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.” The adopted rules are predicted to provide
$662,759 in ex-vessel value for the commercial sector (compared with a preliminary estimated ex-value of $638,000 in 2013).

However, the comment suggests that WDFW needs to allocate catch between sectors based on economic value derived from the fish harvested. This issue is much more complex given the “statewide perspective” direction in policy. A simplistic re-allocation within Willapa Bay would not address the balance of opportunities across the state. The majority of Chinook and coho are prioritized for recreational fisheries in most other regions. For example: “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.” Willapa Bay is the one region of the state where pre-season planning has resulted in more Chinook and coho harvested by the commercial sector on a regular basis over the past decade. The Department has complied with specific policy direction to allocate resources when provided. No such direction has been provided in Willapa Bay, suggesting that the Commission is comfortable with the current opportunity and catch balance. WDFW anticipates that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will be reviewing Willapa Bay salmon management this fall and additional guidance will be forthcoming. In lieu of current prescriptive guidance regarding opportunity and catch sharing, the Department believes the adopted rules provide meaningful fisheries for both sectors and comply with Commission policy.

The comments below are a response by the Advocacy to the Willapa Commercial season for 2014 outlined in the CES. It was the Advocacy that brought the legal action in 2013 challenging the Commercial season that basically started the effort to protect natural origin spawners ( wild ) so I thought this might be of interest to some folks following the many issues surrounding Willapa salmon harvest.


Phil Anderson, Director
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 RE: 2014 Willapa Commercial Season Dear Director Anderson:
The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy offers the following comments on the 2014 com- mercial season recently adopted for Willapa Bay. In addition, the Advocacy feels that the parties should move forward with completing their performance under the agreement reached as a result of the 2013 season challenge.

The Advocacy recognizes significant improvements in the NOF process used to develop the 2014 commercial season. We believe more improvements are in order, especially in the area of reliabil- ity and accuracy of presentation materials. That being said, we compliment the efforts undertaken by the staff this year to improve the public’s ability to participate in the process. We take special note of the efforts undertaken by Region 6 staff under the leadership provided by Steve Thiesfeld.

Another noteworthy improvement related to public participation is the season adopted actually re- flected many of the comments and input provided by the public during NOF. While many will be disappointed that their points of view were not adopted in the fashion they sought, the CES draft- ing improved significantly and the public could actually recognize the process they participated in and see where the Department agreed and WDFW’s rationale when it didn’t agree with their points of view.

The Advocacy further recognizes that the season adopted shows significant progress in regards to the Advocacy’s concerns over selective fishing utilization and conservations standards. We note the following highlights:

• The installation of a protection zone for the North River Chinook stock;

• Reducing the harvest cap for Chinook from 30% down to 20%;

• Seeking support from the commercial fleet to find alternative gears;

• Increasing onboard observers from <1% historically to 15% during selective fishing periods;

Page 2, Willapa Commercial Season Comments

• Reducing the reliance upon selective fishing and moving toward a non-selective approach with retention to reduce discarding large numbers of dead bycatch;


• Language changes in the WAC that require all bycatch to be released be placed into a recovery box and remain there until fully recovered;

• Insertion of net free days during weekly cycles rather than continuous 7 day a week seasons to help get fish upriver; and

• Insertion of several weeks of net free time during the high point of the Chum run cycle.


Unfortunately, the Advocacy also has significant concerns over the season that was adopted. In our view, the 2014 season once again fails to rise to the legislative mandate that the Department manage first for conservation and harvest second.

We highlight the following concerns:

a. The CES only references inseason adjustments to increase the commercial season when professional fisheries management protocols recognize that inseason monitoring (the purpose of quick reporting of landings) and reducing harvest if over-harvest is underway is a key to insuring conservation standards are met. (In season management is used regularly for recreational seasons and other commercial fisheries in Washington);

b. The season adopted installs unlimited net pressure (number of boats) into 2T during much of the run cycle for North River Chinook dramatically negating the intended benefits of the protection zone

c. The decision to once again install a net season of this magnitude in 2T as a means to deliver the fleet the maximum-possible ex-vessel values from hatchery Chinook will continue the downward trend of natural spawning Chinook reaching the gravel in the Willapa, Nasalle, and other streams (evolved after the Department installed a lucrative net season into the area now known as 2T over 5 years ago);

d. The Department states that it will increase observers but doesn’t provide any assurance that observers will be properly trained and enforcement staff will be present in adequate numbers to deliver the 90% compliance rate assumed by the Department;

e. Reliance on an assumed 90% mortality figure without adequate historical
justification and when WDFW possesses ample evidence that fisher compliance with Fish Friendly Practices is inconsistent, at best;

Page 3, Willapa Commercial Season comments

f. While the Department adopted the Advocacy and others recommendation to allow the fleet to retain Chum as a means to avoid wasting fish while increasing the ex-vessel value to the fleet, it failed to adopt the key reason for supporting such a move, adding another week cycle of net free time during the prime time of the Chum run cycle (practicing avoidance).

While we had sincerely hoped it would be otherwise, due to the above stated concerns, the Advocacy cannot endorse the season that has been adopted. As a result, we intend to reserve our rights to object in the future if the problems identified above in a. through
f. are proven valid during the 2014 season or similar conditions reappear in an adopted WAC in the future.

Hopefully, Mr. Theisfeld and others within the Department will conduct the fisheries in such a fashion that our concerns are not proven valid. The natural spawners and future generations of citizens would benefit greatly if the Department can prove us wrong and the Advocacy members would like nothing better than to admit the Department did so. The question remaining is “Will the Department conduct the season in a manner that actually delivers the conservation results that are implied by or expressed within the text of the CES?”

The decision to opt not to challenge this year’s season was difficult in many ways. A pri- mary driver was the Advocacy’s recognition that the department faces the difficult task of correcting decades of unsuccessful hatchery and harvest practices and success will depend greatly on a concerted effort by all involved.

The Advocacy is ready and willing to move forward in a positive fashion. To that end, we look forward to receiving notification that you have requested that the Commission revisit the Willapa plan. We also stand ready to begin working directly with WDFW staff to schedule and conduct the four public meetings called for in the settlement agreement.

Again, we compliment the Department on its improvements installed this year over the experience of last year. We feel that now is the time to continue with those improvements and complete the performance of the 2013 settlement agreement.

The letter below is to Director Anderson from the QIN regarding budget and hatchery cuts / production and while it was written in 2009 not much has changed. I think I will try something and see if it helps folks understand the letter or rather the dance that WDF&W the QIN have had going on since the late 1990's. I will put my comments in RED so they easily distinguished from the letters author's comments. Now the formatting will be rough as in going from a PDF to word to PP things ...... ah ....... get strange?

So here goes ............................






Phil Anderson Interim Director
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 Dear Phil:



RECEIVED
APR 8 2009

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Thank you for your letter dating January 27, 2009 providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the potential impacts of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) budget shortfall and the proposed hatchery program reductions. Our comments pertain primarily to proposed reductions in production for facilities located within Grays Harbor.

Factors similar to the four listed in your letter to help identify and rationalize specific program reductions across multiple species and geographic regions are appropriate. However, we believe that two additional considerations should also be taken into account: (1) The extent to which hatchery operations are related to mitigation agreements or requirements to offset damage to habitat or as a condition for obtaining permits or other authorization; Yes & no. The QIN is correct that the hatchery production IS mitigation for the loss of natural production but only to harvest not spawners in a stream. (2) The effect on total allowable harvest mortality of wild and hatchery production from Grays Harbor, for treaty and non-treaty fisheries both within and outside Grays Harbor, under management constraints directed at protection of comingled naturally-produced stocks. 100% correct BUT ( seen that coming didn't you? ) the QIN view is to the court agreed to escapements for Grays Harbor and it's tributaries. The simplest way I know to explain that is if tributary fails to make spawner escapement that is OK as long as the total escapement goal for spawners is acheived. Now the state side is managed down to the tributaries ( larger streams only ) level for Coho & Chinook but not Chum. So what to do? I am clueless as for the last 15 years the co managers have operated a dual management system with each taking care of their share of harvest. Sure the fish and public have suffered but what is new?

Generally, we believe that WDFW and the QIN should work collaboratively as co¬ managers to identify adjustments to hatchery production programs that are focused on improving specific program effectiveness, efficiency, scientific defensibility and reduction of risks to natural salmonid populations. Priority considerations for reducing hatchery production at facilities located within Grays Harbor:

• Programs that do not provide mutual harvest benefits to co-managers within Grays Harbor or pose ecological risks to indigenous populations of naturally produced fish should be eliminated first. For example:

• Out-of-basin transfer programs. I beleive this is directed toward the issue that WDF&W stopped producing salmon ( other than the 300K Skookumchuck Dam mitigatin ) for the Chehalis Basin and rear nearly 1,500,000 Coho for Puget Sound at the Skookumchuck Facility and thank you QIN for objecting.

•Non-local origin summer-run steelhead programs. Non-local origin lake stocking programs. Now this one is just plain BS. The Rec sports fisheries license fees pay a huge portion of WDF&W's bills and to complain about Summerrun Steelhead is rather self serving. Now the non local lake stocking are the Rainbow lake plants for heaven's sake directed primarily at families and children. That the QIN would feel this is inappropriate is a bit of a reach. My goodness the thought that tax payer dollars and citizen license fees only go to things that benefit QIN commercial fisheries defies logic.

• We recommend that WDFW discontinue the Stevens Creek summer run steelhead program in the Humptulips, Lake Aberdeen releases in the Wynoochee, and Eight Creek in the Upper Chehalis. Non-local origin summer run steelhead programs should be eliminated before any reductions for local origin winter run steelhead programs in Grays Harbor are considered. I addressed this previously. Elimination of these programs will potentially reduce fish health risks to other stocks in Grays Harbor and adjacent watersheds because IHN virus is currently being harbored in Lake Aberdeen and Humptulips steelhead. Now this one is a bit stunning as e mails identify objections from another tribe objecting to releases salmon by the QIN of smolt showing signs of IHN. Having some Rainbow we were rearing years back sequestered due to IHN and the fish showed zero signs of the disease but it was detected. I think this one is best left to the Bio's. Rearing capacity that becomes available due to reductions in the summer steelhead program should be utilized to reduce loading densities for on-station winter steelhead production to reduce stress and improve the capacity to manage future IHN virus outbreaks.

• The highest priority for production program goals for the Skookumchuck facility should be directed at providing mitigation for habitat degradation in the Upper Chehalis basin. In-basin mitigation for past and current habitat degradation in the upper Chehalis and future habitat impacts caused by potential flood control projects should receive the highest priority when considering adjustments to enhancement production for Upper Chehalis facilities. This is a bulls eye of the first order. Part of the Governor Dan Evans Salmon Enhancement package the Skookumchuck facility was built and produced salmon for the Chehalis. WDF&W ended the program transferred the 300k mitigation Coho smolt to Bingham Hatchery on the Satsop ( in violation of the mitigation agreement which was ended when Friends of the Chehalis threatened legal action several years back ) Out-of-basin transfers of fish produced in Grays Harbor facilities should have lower priority than in-basin releases. The Skookumchuck hatchery is currently utilized for incubation and rearing of 1.65 million Skykomish origin hatchery coho. Eyed eggs are transferred from Marblemount hatchery to Skookumchuck in January and subsequently transferred to South Sound and Squaxin Island net pens as juveniles in February of their release year. Consequently, the largest release group of hatchery coho raised within Grays Harbor does not contribute to Grays Harbor fisheries. Again thank you QIN as most folks in the Chehalis Basin are unaware that WDF&W continues to utilize one of the most cost effective hatcheries in the state to benefit Puget Sound fisheries. The losses to our community are simply just huge! The proposed reductions to Grays Harbor total 16% whereas a 13% reduction in total production is proposed for South Puget Sound. We note that no reductions are currently proposed for Puget Sound net pen programs that utilize hatchery capacity within Grays Harbor. Right on target folks! No BS here as the QIN pegged this one.

• We support the elimination of Satsop origin coho transfers to Upper Chehalis facilities in favor of the use of Upper Chehalis origin stock as broodstock for the Skookumchuck facility. Now this is interesting. Prior to the present Director being appointed the local communities worked collaboratively on several issues. This was one of the issues and the mitigation Coho were moved back to the upper basin to comply with the mitigation requirements after Freinds of the Chehalis threatened legal action BUT three release sites were to be utilized for this production to disperse harvest opportunity for Rec fishers over a wider area of the upper basin and utilized a LATE ( Dec / Jan ) Satsop Coho stock. Now the rub, bump in the road, a say what moment, WDF&W was supposed to have conversations with the QIN to insure it was not a issue and evidently this DID NOT happen. Bad our side as both the QIN and Chehalis Tribe concerns should ( and were supposed to be ) addressed.

• We request additional information regarding the basis for WDFW's proposal to reduce Chehalis coho production by 40% while proposing a 15% reduction for Humptulips production. The largest release group within Grays Harbor occurs from the Stevens Creek hatchery in the Humptulips River. Hatchery escapements (rack + strays) over the last decade averaged over 25,000 for on-station releases. This program consistently produces the largest hatchery surpluses within Grays Harbor. Adjusting the size of the Stevens Creek coho program was recommended by the HSRG in 2004 as one option for reducing the number of strays and reducing the annual surplus returning at the rack. The Humptulips NOR Coho ( natural origin recruits or Wild ) have not made escapement for 23 years or more and when it did it was only because of the influx of up to 4 hatchery origin Coho for every 1 NOR Coho. Right here things get weird and not just a little but way way out there. Because the Humptulips utilizes pumped river water and does not have a weir a very large percentage of returning adults simply swim right past the hatchery and do what salmon do when they return, they spawn! So for years local advocates from Tom Pentt, Jerry Paveltich, and myself and many others attempted to get a hatchery modification done to utilize Stevens Creek water to reduce straying. In fact the current Fish Program Manager and several Science Division staff tried to get funding for the modification only to have Olympia veto it.

Presently the modification is to be completed this summer ( courtesy the former Governor's job package ) and Rep. Blake's effort must be recognized. That said we have a problem on the Humptulips with NOR Coho as they have been overwhelmed for so many years by the hatchery stock that the QIN appears to accept that it will take hatchery strays to supplement the NOR Coho to make escapement. Take this year as an example. Before harvest the Humptulips NOR Coho will not make escapement. So what to do? Shut down harvest? Recs can selectively fish in river and get the impacts very low by releasing NOR ( unclipped ) Coho. Not so the QIN or NT Nets for that matter. Add to the mix the new Grays Harbor policy that dictates managing for NOR stocks and you have a recipe for something that looks like two trains meeting head on.

Blame the QIN? I think not as WDF&W knew of the problem but just ignored it, as did the QIN. Blame WDF&W? Yes / No but remember as knowledge of hatcheries limitations have grown it culminating with HSRG ( Hatchery Scientific Review Group ) and as with everything the dollars to make changes are scarce and competition for funds fierce and the Humptulips lost out. So now WE ( QIN / WDF&W / citizens ) have a problem and on this issue the blame game will get neither the tribal fisheries or non treaty fishers out of this mess. Only the QIN & WDF&W can map a path out of this mess and mess is a simplistic term to describe what exist with Humptulips NOR Coho. Well I guess another route is available and it would be a judge saying you shall.

• In additional reductions in production are necessary, impacts of adjustments to each program should be evaluated in terms of the distribution of harvest opportunity among treaty and non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries, particularly within each Grays Harbor management area. Based on information currently available to us regarding program effectiveness and program specific contributions to Grays Harbor fisheries, we recommend the following,:

•No reductions should be made to current levels of Aberdeen net pen releases of 150,000 coho.
Proportional reductions should be larger for off-station Westport net pens and on-station Hurnptulips releases than on-station Satsop releases to help reduce hatchery stray rates and improve "sharing"of reductions in production. This one is really locked in the history of Bingham Hatchery. When Mr. Blum was Director of WDF&W he directed that Simpson Hatchery ( now renamed Bingham ) be closed due to a lower than normal survival rate of out migrating Coho smolt which appeared to take place in the South Monte reach of the river which became known as the "line of death". Well now the meeting at Monte Square with the public was ah .... loud? So a compromise was developed and part of the compromise was to move Bingham Hatchery presmolt to net pens at the Port of Grays Harbor and Westport Marina to get a larger return and provide opportunity in the Westport Marina for tourism. In addition Senator Brad Owen obtained funding for a study of the so called "line of death".

While the net pens do offer up opportunity straying is pretty much a given so it has always been a bit dicey as WDF&W did not really address it in the beginning as it should have. Now that was easy to whack em with but remember at the time the knowledge of hatchery / wild interaction as to genetices was just beginning to emerge. Around Grays Harbor things just seem to run on auto pilot which can come home to bite one's self in the rear, big time.

Lastly, when considering plans for future production from Grays Harbor facilities independently from budget-drive modifications, we suggest that we jointly explore reduction of on-station releases of Humptulips River coho and reallocation of funds to increase production of Chinook within the Chehalis system. This would be nice but I am not going to hold my breath.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposed hatchery program reductions and look forward to working with you to develop a final package.

Sincerely,

Ed Johnstone
Quinault Fisheries Policy Spokesperson

Any idea when the quinault tribal netting schedule going to be posted for the hump?

id say sometime in late aug..

Here is what R6 D17 ran in the model. It is essentially the 2013 schedule but I would not bet it is the final word. Sorry about the formatting but C&P goes nuts when dropped in PP but at least you can get a general idea. The thing is despite public posturing the state & QIN do not exactly go out of their way to get along.

Stat Week Actual # Days
schedule Date Fished
36 Sept. 1- Sept. 7 0.0
37 Sept 8 - Sept 14 0.0
38 Sept 15 - Sept 21 0.0
0 39 Sept 22 - Sept 28 2.0
2 40 Sept 29 - Oct 5 3.0
3 41 Oct 6 - Oct 12 4.0
4 42 Oct 13 - Oct 29 4.0
2 43 Oct 20 - Oct 26 2.0
0 44 Oct 27 - Nov 2 2.0
0 45 Nov 03 - Nov 09 1.0
3 46 Nov 10 - Nov 16 2.0
5 47 Nov 17 - Nov 23 5.0
5 48-53 Nov 24 - 5.0
24 30

This came through my e mail and I thought it hit right on.


The Recs (and even the Commies) should recognize that the tribes are their "friends" if all they want to do is catch more fish. QIN would be ecstatic if Hump, Satsop, and Skook, plus Satsop Springs absolutely maximized releases of quality fish.

They use habitat and wild fish as a hammer to get what they want (the Feds are real responsive, too). The big fear in the halls of power is having to protect habitat and actually produce fish in it. GH does not need a single hatchery fish in order to have robust wild runs that would support a larger in-Harbor fishery-sport and Commercial- than you have today. It would take continuing to protect the habitat and require significant changes in AK, BC, and WA ocean fisheries in the short term. Over the long term some ocean fisheries could be put in place. Not as big, but probably limits for all when open.

Couple of things folks have questions about. As to Grays Harbor the simple fact is nobody knows for sure on the QIN or NT net schedules. First the QIN have not posted it and WDF&W has not come an agreement with the QIN on the 2014 seasons. Best guess here is about the same as last year. While some may think they know, the simple fact is until WDFW files a CR 102 for the NT Commercial season nobody will know for sure just what the days / dates are. As to the situation regarding Humptulips Wild Coho numbers way below escapement thus hitting some critical directives in the new Commission Guidelines yes / no / say what is around? It is a interesting as to how Region Manager Steve Theisfeld resolves this bit and stays out of court.

In the July issue of the Reel News has a guest editorial by the U of W on the conflict between Rec and Commercial fisheries in Willapa Harbor on page 4. It is a good read and for folks who would like a copy the Reel News provided us a PDF of the issue to send to folks. So if you would like a electronic copy PM me and I will send it to you. Also on Page 3 is a letter to the editor outlining the process utilized which is a really good read.

CR 102 for Grays Harbor for the Non Treaty Commercial Gillnet season has been filed and posted on WDF&W's website. A review is underway but here is the link to take a look. The QIN is to be similar to last year, or at least that is what we have been told.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html

So, if we assume the QIN follows a schedule similar to last year, is the "4 on-3 off" a pipe dream at this point?

Not really but could. It is 4/3 but if the QIN goes for five and does not violate the court decisions then that week would only have two days net free. But it should not happen often if at all. The 4/3 was not intended to restrict the court mandated tribal harvest so the state side ( NT Nets ) is the restricted entity.

Another way to look at is 4/3 in a calendar week and the QIN normally start at noon and take out at noon. Now two 24 hr periods occupy 3 calendar days and 3 QIN days occupy 4 calendar days resulting in no NT nets. A end run was tried using 96 hours but did not fly ( after clarification ) so the QIN maybe doing five is offset by the manner they conduct fisheries. This means that R6 can not try to dodge 4/3 by backing NT nets behind QIN using hours ( part of days ) rather than calendar days. In other word I minute of a 24 calendar day takes all 24 hrs up. No games no reinterpretation.

Little more. Region 6 Fish program Manager Steve Theisfeld sent the model out so if you would like it PM me. On the NT tab it has the combined Humptulips & Chehalis net schedules lined out by week. Handy little thing!

The information below is from QIN President Fawn Sharp published in a Tulalip Tribal news lettere and reflects the QIN comments on the new WDF&W Commission policy for Grays Harbor. ( & the tributaries ) Many will reject the positions put forth by President Sharp but one should temper that rejection with a understanding that history drives perception for most folks tribal or non tribal. That said in the last 15 years ( or more ) co management in Grays Harbor has went from co management to dual management with both the QIN and WDF&W pretty much managing their portion of the harvest pretty much independent of each other.

President Sharp: " Rather than confronting the major threat to natural fish production in the Grays Harbor Basin, destruction and degradation of habitats, the Commission has chosen to focus on harvest by a small segment of the fishing community." Two things come to mind here. First it was a major revolt by citizens that resulted in the new Commission policies not just a idle thought by the Commission. It was a diverse and substantial number of citizens not a small group of self serving individuals. Secondly the inland communities in the Chehalis Basin have shouldered the vast majority of the burden of habitat reform and believe the purpose to be to get fish back to the streams for healthy runs. The QIN relationship with the Chehalis Basin salmonid stocks is primarily harvest. If you have more fish due to restoration you have more for harvest BUT that does not necessarily mean more spawning salmon in the streams that the fish spawn. In fact the Chinook escapement goal was recently reduced for Grays Harbor .

President Sharp: “As co-managers, the Quinault Nation and State should be working collaboratively and cooperatively to conserve Grays Harbor salmon. Yet the Commission didn’t even bother to meet with us. The Commission’s plan is a stark reminder of the decades-long battles in the federal courts which found that the so-called ‘conservation’ actions of the State of Washington were in fact ‘wise use’ decisions that unlawfully discriminated against treaty fishing. It is inconceivable that today, some 40 years after the decision of Judge Boldt in US v Washington, the Commission would still choose to ignore tribal rights and interests,”

I guess this is one view but the following is from the new Grays Harbor Management plan. 2) Meet the terms of U.S. v. Washington and other federal court orders and promote a strong relationship with the Quinault Indian Nation. Spawning escapement goals, fisheries, and artificial production objectives will be developed and jointly agreed with the Quinault Indian Nation. Agreements between the Department and the Quinault Indian Nation related to salmon in the Grays Harbor Basin shall be made available to the public through the agency web site.[/b][/I]

So take a look and draw your own conclusions.

TAHOLAH, WA (2/18/14)— “I am extremely disappointed that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission has chosen to unilaterally develop a management policy for Grays Harbor salmon,” said Fawn Sharp, President of the Quinault Indian Nation. Her comment referred to a recent news release in which the Commission announced its February 8 approval of a new salmon-management policy to conserve wild salmon runs and clarify catch guidelines for sport and commercial fisheries in the bay.

“As co-managers, the Quinault Nation and State should be working collaboratively and cooperatively to conserve Grays Harbor salmon. Yet the Commission didn’t even bother to meet with us. The Commission’s plan is a stark reminder of the decades-long battles in the federal courts which found that the so-called ‘conservation’ actions of the State of Washington were in fact ‘wise use’ decisions that unlawfully discriminated against treaty fishing. It is inconceivable that today, some 40 years after the decision of Judge Boldt in US v Washington, the Commission would still choose to ignore tribal rights and interests,” said Sharp.

“Quinault Nation has consistently demonstrated leadership in habitat restoration, enhancement and all aspects of good stewardship. The State’s pursuit of fish-killing dams in the Chehalis River and the Commission’s actions reflect continuation of a disturbing pattern. Rather than confronting the major threat to natural fish production in the Grays Harbor Basin, destruction and degradation of habitats, the Commission has chosen to focus on harvest by a small segment of the fishing community. The State also continues to ignore the orders of federal courts. Proper management of Grays Harbor fishery resources requires a comprehensive and cohesive approach developed through collaborative processes at state/tribal, regional and even international levels. By acting on its own, the Commission violated the principles of cooperation and trust and even such agreements as the Centennial Accord. While the Commission’s policy can’t apply to our fisheries, implementation of the Commission’s policy could well set the stage for future conflict and confrontation,” said President Sharp.

It would be interesting to look at the abundance of wild salmonids in the Quinault. Almost all of the watershed is in reservation or National Park. Which means the evil state of WA is not doing land/habitat management. As fish managers for the Quinault, isn't it the Tribes who would set the appropriate escapement goals? If there is one place in WA where the Tribes can showcase how well they manage natural reosources it would be there, right? Or did I miss something?

I can usually find a few things I agree with in these tribal rants, but in this case, all I can find to agree with is that the State and the Tribe are deeply divided on these issues. That much is crystal clear. Rather than waste time and energy pointing out the flaws in Ms. Sharp's assertions, I'll simply state how refreshing it would be to JUST ONCE see a treaty tribe admit to SOME degree of accountability for the declining salmon populations. I won't argue that they dealt the major blow (that was us, back in the cannery era), but if they want their "half" to be some number larger than zero 50 years from now, they might want to take a quick glance in the mirror while planning their 5 days/wk. "winter steelhead fishery." It would also be nice to see the QIN send a representative to NOF or any other regional meeting to address co-management issues, as opposed to claiming they were never invited to the discussion.

It just makes me wonder what bridges they intend to build with this sort of self-serving ranting. Bitching about what we're trying to do to ensure a future for wild salmon while they refuse to make any changes of their own won't do much to improve relations or our salmon runs. Sometimes, I think they're interested in neither.

YES. The Queets is another shining example of how their "stewardship" has made a huge difference (in terms of the rapid rate of decline among salmon and steelhead populations)... And all that despite the habitat on the Queets being among the best left in the lower 48. Most impressive.