Elijah...

L99 and CM have it correct. Impacts to WILD chinook were capped at 20% during pre-season planning.... and in-season restrictions occurred to help insure that objective.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/feb_1618_b_wb_guidance.pdf

We currently lack a sufficiently selective fishery capable of fully exploiting hatchery surpluses WITHOUT exceeding the impact cap mandated by Policy.

BOTTOM LINE... the entrenched fisheries can't possibly access all of the available hatchery production without wiping out the wilds. Not because I said so, but because it IS so.

Thanks Doc,
I wish he would understand. It is not difficult. You, CM and Riverguy have all tried to explain it to him. He is just frustrated I guess.

No Francis, all the of you have it wrong. I know you have your big fancy sled and you do not fish the rivers so you are out of touch. Please go back and read the reason for action under the closure and tell me what it says. I know that you are also against Hatchery fish and you drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago. Hopefully can still recover from it.

I'll bite. It says returns have been lower and they risk not making egg take. Then it reopens to coho only once they go out a "broodstock" enough fish to make egg take. That seems to be an additional reason for additional closures. The fishery remained constrained by wild fish even after egg take was acheived, otherwise they would've open kings again.

And, on a typical year, WB has far more hatchery fish available harvest than there are wild impacts available to prosecute the fisheries. Where is my analysis off?

It's interesting how you reject how Policy dictates how this fishery is prosecuted. As Rivrguy likes to say, it is what it is. Like it or not, that's the baseline schematic for operating the fishery.

But 2018 also presented unique challenges. North migrating chinook stocks were depressed everywhere... and WB was no exception. Marine area catches were dismal, and the real-time returns to the hatchery racks in-season were lagging significantly.... even after the first 2 rain events of September.

Even though staff knew some undetermined number of fish had already escaped the marine area and were staging in the lower tidewater sections of the WB tribs, they were NOT confident in just how many.... so the precautionary approach ruled the day to help ensure there would be sufficient escapement for hatchery brood.

The third rain (which happened immediately after announcing the closure) would eventually move the fish to the hatchery racks. Once brood was assured, fishing re-opened in sequential fashion, albeit WITHOUT chinook retention.

That there would ultimately be a large surplus of hatchery chinook turned out to be a HUGE blessing. Nemah experienced a massive adult kill... pre-spawn mortalities... due to Ichthyophthirius or "ICH" for short. Virtually the entire adult broodstock was lost.

Surplus eggs from the other facilities had to be brought in to backfill the deficit at Nemah. In the end, Advisors were told chinook egg-take objectives at each facility were ultimately fulfilled.

With chinook spawning now complete, a reasonable run size estimate can be made, and we will probably know at the next Advisor meeting whether the 20% impact cap was satisfied.

Way back when WDF would restrict fisheries in the ocean in order meet escapement needs. Then, if anywhere on the coast escapement was exceeded there was hell to pay because those surplus fish were wasted and could have been caught.

In the long run, mixed stock fisheries of any kind are hard to manage. Mixed as in hatchery/wild or (say) chum/steelhead in Nisqually. Whatever you do, one run gets under fished and one gets overfished.

Well eyefish, I am glad that you actually took the time to figure out why the closure was in effect. It was not for the NOS as you had mentioned earlier. I do not reject that and I have no problems with that. But I have problems with is the Fisheries biologist being out of touch with what is going on in the river. There were plenty of kings in the river if they would have actually surveyed how many fish were in the river and done an accurate job at that. They have adequate technology to figure that out these days but were too lazy or inexperienced to do so.
But more importantly let me ask you where did those extra supplemental fish come from for the Nema? Did they come from the same river and which they have reduced the plants tenfold? How do you think that will play out in the coming years with the continued die off on the Nemah due to high temperatures and low water conditions in August since you are so educated? They will not have any eggs to draw from and as a result they will shut down the Fisheries indefinitely. Nice of you to defend them and their actions. I hope we can hold you as accountable as we would hold them when this happens

I seriously doubt anybody is actually defending WDFW's management scheme. They are explaining what happens when they put it in place.

What is being proposed for WB is defended here, at least what I have seen. But, once they make a decision then folks understand the outcome.

Elijah:

Gota ask.…..who are you????? Where do you live? What is your educational background? Do you have an idea of a effective way, to catch hatchery fish and not impact the native fish? Do impart your "words of wit" or pull the plug on that computer....

You act like you have lots of answers.....I see you have made 21 posts on this forum. There are people making these posts, that have years of posting here, thousands of hours of attending "fishery meetings", many have advanced college degrees......some have worked their entire careers in fisheries.


It will be nice to have you come to the NOF meetings.....they need to have people from the general public, that have all the answers.

Drifter it is people like you who are the problem and are not open to change. You assume that just because someone has a degree that they know how to best manage a fishery. That is obviously not the case with the wdfw. Furthermore if you think more posts on this website site makes you someone then I feel sorry for you. Can you point out where I said that I have all the answers? I disagree with the way that things are being run on at least three items that I feel are significant and being overlooked.
Nearly 100 Years of operation on this Hatchery would likely result in no true native fish left. We can argue about that and what is in fact a native fish but you cannot argue with the results that this Hatchery has produced for nearly 100 years. One answer would be to have a wier in place. But definitely not to do what they are doing right now with the reallocation of plants to the southern Rivers. What have you brought to the table?

I think it it is height of arrogance and stupidity to question what folks who have spent hundreds of hours of non-paid time trying to help the situation "bring to the table". If you are so determined to call out volunteers then you NEED to go to management meetings and find out what is going on and see the limiting factors that we have to deal with. Otherwise you are just running your mouth on a social forum, lots of lazy folks do just that. Go to a meeting and put a face on the folks that you criticize. It ain't about how many posts someone makes, it's what they "bring to the table", which is a LOT more then you do. Bob

You know that is the first thing you posted that looks to be somewhat based on something that is fact based, maybe. The thing is WDF&W has never and I mean never told the Willapa community exactly what the Willapa Policy does to their fisheries. So folks roam around with views driven by what WDF&W did and told them was OK and correct for years.

My views are known but let me say this. You do not like last year? Then just wait because last year will look like fluff and stuff compared to the new normal for Willapa which is headed for hatchery production for the marine fisheries and limited to no terminal Chinook harvest.

Oh as to the lots of fish in the river, next year you will have the 5 year old returns of the Forks Cr releases and the new 300K ( 90% reduction)and then only in 2020 the returns on 300K. So let your heart not worry the lots of fish problem will soon be solved in the North end as you will have very few NOS or harvestable Chinook. Problem solved WDFW style!

As to the lotsa fish discussion, we used to walk 100% of the anadromous zones of the two watersheds we were studying weekly, September-June, doing spawner surveys. Even though we had traps on the streams and knew to the fish how many were up there, we walked to get spawn timing and distribution.

One November ('79, I believe), it got damn cold. Creek temps were below 32 degrees and flows dropped as water converted to ice and stopped flowing. Every week from late November to late January we counted 200 coho in a single pool under a large alder tree. If that was the only place we looked, "the creek was plugged with fish". When it finally thawed and flows bumped up, 200 coho came out from under the roots, went upstream, spawned and died. Point being that unless you look at the whole stream, unless you have previous year's data, what you have is bunch of fish in hole .

Not saying that WDFW has enough staff out there looking; in WB they have a lot of streams to look at on any one day. But they should have an Institutional Memory backed by data to at least suggest what was going on.

Barb sent this update on the Willapa review out so I thought I would post it up. Several folks have asked me on just what they are supposed to comment on and I have no idea. The process has been a Adviser meetings with time to comment at the end for public comment but NOT participate. No solid proposals or options fully developed but rather fact checking and personal views.


To the question of whether or not the agency or Commission will take public input on anything within the Willapa Policy before any action is or is not taken, no idea at this point.


As to the question is this just a dog and pony show. Yes and no. Yes it has in the sense that it has been structured around the Advisers processes which by design limit active public participation. No in that a real effort has been made to insure the information is correct and not biased with a decent effort to provide access to the information via the WDF&W website. I say that with this one critical exception, at no time during the development or in this review has WDF&W told the Willapa community just what this policy does to their communities. Rec, commercial, inriver, are all going to be severely impacted and depending on location have a strong possibility of being eliminated.


From my perspective I suggest folks start asking the hard questions about the future of the Willapa fisheries while you still have time to do so whatever your views are.







Hi All, just wanted to forward this out to everyone so you have a chance to review and comment on the attached document if you would like.

As a reminder, we have two meetings scheduled on January 9th and 23rd. Here is a link to the advisory group page on our website https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag/.

Thank you.
Barbara

The next Willapa meeting is here and staff sent out a substantial notification with attachments. You can e mail Barbara.mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov if you did not get the notice and feel the need.


Additionally some have questions on the Spring Chinook thing that is said to be happening. As I recall Forks Cr Hatchery has about 500K of Kalama Springers on station. As I understand it all processes were followed and approvals necessary. This is ( may be a bit fuzzy here ) to be a ongoing thing based upon surplus eggs being available. Will this work? No idea but it will only produce a small return, based upon stream of origin performance, of around 1/3 of a percent. 1200 to 1400 adults terminal Willapa with the usual conflicts around harvest impacts on other species.

Also the question around why this was not fully explained to the Willapa Community. No idea as to motives by WDFW but I would say they probably feel that the Adviser Process meets all obligations to all users and the Willapa Community. Remember folks WDFW hides in plain sight and does believe that not providing information that would lead one to a different conclusion than they desire is a acceptable way to conduct business. They are a government agency and it is what it is.



From Staff:
In case you are planning to attend tomorrow night’s (01/09/18) Willapa Bay salmon advisory meeting here in Montesano at 6 p.m. or if you are just interested in the documents.


Subject: WBSAG meeting 1-9-2019 materials

Hello everyone,

Just a reminder about our upcoming WBSAG meeting on Wednesday, January 9 at 6pm at the Montesano Regional Office. I have also attached a couple of files that will be used in our discussion. The first file “Report Card for WB policy review” is a preliminary look at the implementation of the goals and objectives in the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy utilizing the “stop-light” paradigm from the Columbia River Policy review. The second file is a pdf of a presentation to discuss the performance of the policy since implementation. I am not planning on producing an agenda for this meeting as most of our time will be spent reviewing and taking feedback on these two documents. If there are some additional topics folks would like to discuss, we can set some time aside at the end of the meeting.

Thanks,
Chad Herring
South Coast Fishery Policy Lead
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov


barbara.mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov

Perhaps the intent of the Springers is to increase SRKW food. The earlier return might add more for whales, with anything added being "more". Perhaps no real intent to have a fishery but rather a place to rear the surplus eggs.

I don't believe the intent is to do so much for the Orcas. Rather to ensure continued commercial harvest in Northern waters.

I do know that in the past WB hatcheries were proposed to be used to feed Canadian fisheries. There is an actual rhyme and reason for it. If the Northern Interceptions are numerically capped, and the Northern managers don't accidentally exceed caps (management imprecision) then the more hatchery fish we can send up there the more wilds we will get back by swamping the fishery. Lots of ifs in all that.

Here are my comments on the Willapa Policy and honestly I think I am looking though the rosy red glass as it will probably be worse than I think in the future unless the Commission acts and soon!

My name is XXX and we have spoken in the past. I am writing this in regard to the Willapa Policy. Shortly the Willapa review for 2018 will be completed and frankly I am deeply concerned that nothing will change. The best I can tell is that the main focus for the agency is the 20% or 14% harvest impact which to be honest is smoke and mirrors because it simply does not matter.

I have attached a preseason run forecast for Willapa for 2018 with the RR tab by system and I urge you to look to the RR by system tab. You will see the following for the Naselle River.
2014 975W 4150 H .81% straying
2015 483W 1048H .685 % straying
2016 597W 1786 H .749% straying
2017 1172W 403 H .256% straying
2018 499W passed upstream and 244W into the hatchery brood. The RR ( run reconstruction ) is not available yet but the 499 is the escapement minus the staying but I assume it will be similar to 2017 at about .256 straying rate.

Mr. XXXX the returning adults off of 483( assuming they reproduce themselves and some for harvest which is debatable ) is so low that at 14% it is a 67 allowable impact and 20% is 97 allowable impacts. This the total allowable Naselle W impacts for all the Willapa terminal fisheries. Sir I doubt you can even fish for Chinook in the Willapa estuary in the future and to further complicate the issue look to the 244 into the hatchery brood ( if similar to last year ) which will take away any gains to the natural spawners are able to produce and I doubt there will many gains but rather simply hold the Naselle River at, give or take, right where we are now.

When the Commission adopted the Willapa Policy I advocated splitting it into two regions, North and South, and manage them separately but the policy as adopted opted for the current policy. I did not support the concept but accepted it for this one and only reason which revolved around this simple statement by staff. " We cannot stop the straying of hatchery Chinook on the Naselle." For myself I simply accepted it and basically shut my mouth because if that was the case the straying would support the NOS . That was a serious case of bad judgment. I say this because now we are told the straying has been stopped ( see RR by system tab ) which means a hybrid hatchery stock, that is the poster child for what a hatchery stock, is now a standalone population. the simplest way to grasp the gravity of the situation is to do a simple exercise. If stream XX has a escapement of 8000 of which 6000 are hatchery strays and 2000 wild ( this is similar to the Naselle ) and you now reduce the straying from 80% to 25% you end up with 2500 W & H spawning naturally. I cannot see any way that 2500 adults will produce what 8000 previously did when all H & W are a hatchery hybrid regardless if it has fin or is clipped, they are the genetically the same fish.

The actions taken in the Willapa Policy and the agencies implementation and actions since resulted the total destruction of both commercial and recreational harvest. Simply put sir this is a scorched earth attempt to save a wild salmon that is not a wild salmon, that has little or no chance to remotely succeed with current marine harvest by Canada & BC, and if by some wild chance that the Naselle achieved escapement it will take three generations ( 15 years ) to stabilize as a naturally spawning hatchery fish, and over a hundred years or more to develop genetics that tuned to the environmental conditions that are the Naselle River.

The numbers presented by the RR dictate a very grim picture for the next five years regardless of any action the agency or Commission take. Each year the Commission fails to act simply adds another year to the pain. So when does the Commission address the issue? Now or five years, maybe ten, maybe never. Just when is the Commission or staff going to tell the Willapa Community just what WDF&W under the auspice of the Commission has done to their cherished fisheries in the name of preserving the natural spawning Chinook which do not truly exist.

It is time to fix this thing and it needs to be done now. Options are available but the current policy has failed miserably. WDF&W has went out of their way to insure that the local community did not and does not understand the true dimensions of this fiasco. The dishonesty has been and still is one most unbelievable I have seen in my 70 years and it needs to stop. Whatever the outcome honesty and true transparency needs to be restored by WDF&W to the Willapa Policy conversation.

The Commission needs to find a way to address the failure of the policy to accomplish the simplest task in a meaningful manner. The Commission needs to address this issue in a serious manner and in simple terms fix the bloody thing. The Willapa Policy as executed has not and will not help the natural Chinook but it succeeded in destroying the Willapa fisheries. If that is the Commission's description of success then I doubt much of a future exist for any fisheries in Washington State be it commercial, tribal or recreational.

Time for "Occupy Willapa?"