Yup Francis they did according to my brother. They did not notify everyone on the sign in and IT WAS A MEETING POSTED FOR THE PUBLIC to attend. That the Advisers got notified is fine but then you might say the preferential treatment given was a double standard at gutter level to be sure. The other side is why in the hell did they schedule it on a Commission Meeting date. No more excuses for these folks not being able to perform the simplest task correctly.

Glad I was sick, had planned to show up, but would have been highly steamed to make that long of a drive.

I think this makes it pretty clear about the attitude to public engagement.


I'll reserve my commentary for the commission.

The attached document is for the Willapa Policy. The best I can tell is all the items are valid discussion points to be discussed and should be of concern! Not because of what the conversation is but rather what is not being put forward for discussion. What has not ever been clearly defined by WDF&W is just what all the words do the Willapa Community dependant on the hatchery production and it is effect long term. It is the designation of Willapa Prime and Naselle contributing for Chinook that is at the heart of the matter. The North Bay fisheries in T&U are going be limited by a 90% reduction in Forks Cr hatchery so very little Rec or Commercial opportunity will exist after 2019. This leaves the South end of the bay the primary fishing zone and this is problematic.

Using the Run Reconstruction tab in the preseason forecast model it is possible to get a look at the depth of the issue. One has to look to the Naselle NOS ( wild ) Chinook spawners in 2017 which were 1172 NOS and 403 HOS. Previous 3 years were much worse with a low of 483 NOS and high of 1048 HOS, hatchery strays to the gravel. At this point I would like to point out that the through some outstanding work WDF&W will eliminate the vast majority of staying with a new weir by 2023.

So let us assume the success rate for natural spawners pairs is the same and use the number of 1172 NOS for starting point. With the allowable exploitation rate of 14% the policy requires the number of impacts allowed would be 164 total for all users. In a year which the low 403 is your number that dictates 56.5 allowable impacts. Now both numbers are after harvest and can go up or down depending on how harvest is managed and other problems such as the ICH outbreak which will kill both HOS & NOS spawners as a disease cares little as to origin.

It is my contention that unless WDFW just ignores the policy there is not a path for inriver Rec, bay fisheries, and commercials to all fish and some years anyone to fish terminal Willapa Bay. There will be plenty of hatchery clipped fish in the mix but so few NOS adults that one could look at many thousands of adults returning with almost no NOS impacts to allow any substantial Willapa Bay terminal impacts to fish with.

To be sure those of us who travel around fishing it will be a another fishery gone and go somewhere else but the Willapa community will be stuck and take the biggest hit.

I guess for myself all I can say is this is not right. You folks in the Willapa Community need to get involved again and be a REC or Commercial your about to take a hit of epic proportions. You folks need to bury the hatchet and come together for your community while there is something left of your fisheries.

Here is the info in the link Doc posted up. Hey Doc sorry about snapping at you. This crap is making me one grouchy SOB anymore.

Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) Comprehensive Review Fish and Wildlife Commission – Fish Committee Meeting
Director’s Conference Room, December 13, 2018

The Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) was adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) in June 2015. The adaptive management section of Policy C-3622 directed staff to provide a comprehensive review on the implementation and performance of the policy upon the completion of phase one (e.g. 2019). The review will focus on whether the provisions of the Policy were implemented and whether the stated purpose and objectives of the Policy were successfully achieved.

The intent of this review was to assist the Commission in their evaluation of a) whether the Policy was successful in achieving the stated objectives, principles, and provisions; b) areas where the Policy failed or has not been working well, and c) to provide information that might help explain reasons why these potential outcomes may have occurred. The intent can be abbreviated as follows: Has the Policy been implemented as written, and what has occurred as a result of Policy changes?

Below is a synopsis of guidance provided in the policy that staff will be reporting on in the final policy review presentation. This guidance 5 categories: General Fisheries Management, Chinook Management, Coho Management, Chum Management, and Adaptive Management.

General Fisheries Management
• Prioritize restoration and conservation of wild salmon
• Work with partners to protect and restore habitat productivity
• Implement improved broodstock management
• Investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear
• Work through the Pacific Salmon Commission to promote conservation objectives
• Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs to account for species impacts
• In-season management actions to meet conservation and management objectives
• Transparency of salmon management and catch accounting
• Improved fishery management and technical tools
• Promote mark-selective fisheries

Chinook Management
• Population designations - Willapa River; primary, Naselle River; contributing
• 20% impact rate on Willapa and Naselle River natural origin Chinook
• Prioritize recreation fishing opportunities
• Alternative gear set aside
• Timing of commercial fisheries
• Hatchery production

Coho Management
• Population designations
• Achieve aggregate spawner goal
• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities

Chum Management
• Population designations
• Achieve aggregate spawner goal
• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities
• 10% impact rate cap

Adaptive Management
• Conduct annual fishery management review
• Improve in-season management
• Review spawner goals
• Comprehensive hatchery assessment
• Ocean ranching report

If the hatchery production of fall chinook salmon is not moved back to the Willipa the Willipa bay will be closed every year going forward to fishing for fall chinook. There is not one river in the state that has recovered to fishable populations with native chinook salmon by reducing hatchery chinook salmon. We have Chad Herring to thank for this and if this prediction is correct he should loose his job. Or better yet, willingly resign for effectively ruining a great run of fish that has been in place and functioning effectively for over 90 years.

Duh, tell us more......where is this "great run of fish", where has it been in place????


Do enlighten the readers of this post !!!!! Make it a Merry Christmas for all who have followed this thread...…

You might not know since sleds cannot access the area. It involves a lot of hiking. Just look at the escapement numbers. The rivers should have never been shut down this past fall. Mr. Herring was responsible for that horrible decision and there should be consequences otherwise he will continue to make these poor choices in the future. Moving the fish to the other two rivers is one of the biggest mistakes I have ever seen.

One more time it is the NOS ( wild ) spawners that are the limiting factor. You can have 20K hatchery and the NOS be down and you do not fish. Chad had little choice but to follow the policy which is what he is supposed to do.

". . . little choice but to follow the policy . . ."

Which begs the question, what if the policy is ill suited to the natural and human-modified ecology of the Willapa basin? Is it the intent of WDFW to insist that a square peg be pounded into a round hole when there is no magic "MAKE IT FIT" button?

That is the purpose of this thread which is for everyone to know why and what is being done. Staff should follow any policy to the letter. It is the policy level in Olympia that make final decisions, Chad did not fail on this issue, now commercial harvest impacts being greater than required maybe not so much. Regardless it is Ron Warren that owns this mess in Willapa not the local staff.

I am just glad that the naturally-spawning fish there don't know that its poor habitat. I have seen 40lb plus "natives" spawning in smaller streams in the basin where there are no hatcheries. And go way up on the one river with poor habitat when its crowded with Kings.

Apparently one of the hatcheries is being turned over to the raising of "Dog" Salmon, when most of the smaller streams there are prime habitat and I've personally seen thousands of them naturally spawning. I also heard that WDFW were going to throw sportsmen a bone with a new run of fish from one of the hatcheries.

We can (and should) complain about policies with which we disagree and/or are not achieving the intended goals and work toward changing those policies. It is not only wrong to criticize staff for properly implementing policy but is counter-productive and undermines our credibility when we complain that staff is not properly implementing policy. Can’t have it both ways!

Can you remind me which policy Chad was following when he shut down the river only to have nearly 3000 surplus fish return to the Hatchery? He is very out of touch with what is going on in the river. He has very limited experience here to make those kinds of decisions. His experience is more on the east side and it does not apply here.

The way the numbers work is you have an estimate of run size (forecast or ISU), escapement goal, and estimates of harvest/encounters. In the pre-season, a mortality level for the NOR Chinook was set. When reached, based on either dead fish in the boat or x% of encounters, the fishery closes.

Management is based on the best numbers available at the time the decision is made. You have to have a reason to open a fishery. There could 15,000 "extra" hatchery fish in the river but of you are managing for wild fish then if you can't prove there aret any left to kill then you are done. That is the problem with having commingled hatchery and wild fish and bring to "protect the wilds".

Back in the 70s WDF was faced with the twin problems of bing unable to meet wild Chinook escapement goals and having excessive hatchery surpluses. Their solution? Lower the goal. They patted themselves on the back for eliminating the twin problems of surplus and under escapement.

Good explanation carcassman but I don't think that you are familiar with what has happened to this system based on what you wrote as it does not address what happened this past fall. Are you in California?

Nope, I am not in California. Now. While I will admit that I don't know exactly what happened in WB this year I have been to enough goat rodeos to know how the lower-level folks manage salmon.

During my career I have been involved in the front-line, day to day management decision-making process (and pre-season) for somewhere between 75 and 100 million adult salmon. I think I know how the game was played.

CM, Elijah seems to have a difficult time understanding that NOS impacts dictate how seasons are set. I thought you and Riverguy did a good job of explaining it. It doesn't matter how many hatchery fish are in a system. If the NOS impacts are met, then no fishing. That is how the game is played.

That's it. Ideally, when the harvest of the weakest stock is taken, it is then shut down. Which is why the decision to manage for wild stocks or blow them away is so important. Also, why the escapement goal is important. The lower you take the goal, more you can fish. For a while.

CM, thanks again.

Lifter, you also have no idea what happened on this system this year. You sound like a department employee just spouting the same reply over and over and not addressing the issue at hand. Do your research before you reply at this thread instead of just trying to personally attack. I get the feeling that you do not even know what happened on this system this year.