The Secretly Crafted Ten Year Chinook Salmon Harvest Management Plan

[mustang65fbk]

I don't buy the habitat baloney.There are more restrictions now than ever.Logging has increased buffers.Shoreline restrictions have increased.Anyone try to build a house near the water lately?Land trust holdings are at all time highs.Water quality is better now than in the 70's when our ports were toxic soup.The Nisqually's reclaimed an entire delta.The Great Lakes have a great population of Chinook that were started from zero from our brood stock.Do you think they have better habitat than we do.?The habitat argument is a crock,same as the people that say we are cutting all the trees down.There is plenty of good habitat left that is not being used for fish production.

I agree...  I think this is just another excuse given by those in charge to try and make it look like it's the fault of the fish not being able to get it on.  There are pictures of this Sno County and the Everett area from over a hundred years ago where they clear cut almost every single tree in the forest to where it looked like a barren wasteland.  Yet it wasn't at all uncommon for them to catch 50-60lb salmon right out in front here.  I think a large part of the problem has to do with the tribes netting and that has been the problem for the past 30 years or more, ever since the Judge Boldt decision, and the numbers show as much with the population declination.  Clearly, we as sports-fishermen, have no way of being able to over-fish or almost wipe out the species just being able to fish hook and line for a couple weeks out of the year and only in a few areas, if we even get a fishing season at all.

[mustang65fbk]

Draw your own conclusions and support what makes sense to you but when even the authors of the Plan don't believe more cuts will make a discernible difference my vote is we try something different instead of doubling down on the pattern of harvest cutting that hasn't changed the population decline trends for the last 30 years.

I could be mistaken as it's been several days since I read the article and might've missed or forgotten but weren't they mainly trying to say that in regards to just the Stilly?  I mean if they wanted a real argument shouldn't they have included all of the other rivers that are for all intents and purposes, bigger players in terms of fishing?  I guess what I'm saying is that I've heard that the Stilly is basically not a river worth fishing at this point because there are very few fish in it.  Wouldn't this be an apples to oranges argument?  If say the Sno or Sky or a different river for example, that was a larger contributor was having the same issues?  Well that would be a different story, imo.

[mustang65fbk]

The Plan document calls for radical harvest reductions then repeatedly turns around in the next breath and says the real culprit is habitat degradation and harvest reduction won't change a thing unless the habitat is restored.

There are more than 1.5 million more people in the Puget Sound region now than there were in 1990. Proportionally that's 50% growth over the period. 4.6 million up from 3.1 million. All those extra people want to eat and drink and bathe and piss and poop and drive and build houses and work at jobs and shop in malls etc. etc. etc. That affects the watersheds. The controls you reference have improved some of the historical cesspools but sprawl has spread the impacts much more broadly. We are not keeping pace much less reversing the trend. While correlation doesn't always mean causation sometimes it does and a habitat degradation hypothesis fits the available data much better than one based on harvest reduction.

How much are you willing to bet that you're right and the studies are all wrong? NOAA puts the economic value of recreational saltwater fishing in Washington State at 6500 jobs and $775M a year. Not huge compared to say Amazon or Boeing but still important especially to the people working those jobs. Those numbers are going to be a lot smaller if the Sound is closed. Small businesses can't afford to sit out a season or two much less a decade of closures and will close up shop.

Draw your own conclusions and support what makes sense to you but when even the authors of the Plan don't believe more cuts will make a discernible difference my vote is we try something different instead of doubling down on the pattern of harvest cutting that hasn't changed the population decline trends for the last 30 years.

I agree we have more people now than 30 years ago and that cutting sportfishing isn't going to bring back huge numbers of fish.What I do know is in any fishery where nets and commercial harvest is banned fish populations incresae dramatically.This is true worldwide.I also know that habitat can be completely destroyed and fish will return.Remember Mt.St.Helens?The Toutle River was a mudflow,blast zone.There are fish there now.Nature has a way of healing itself.I know that in Lake Washington 100,000 fish can be counted entering the lake at the locks yet only 30,000 make it to the Cedar River.Guess who was in there with nets?I know there are Halibut in the Straight before the longlines go in but are far and few between after they come out.I know there are shrimp and crab in Puget Sound before commercial harvest and far fewer when they are done.I know that far fewer fish raised in a tribal hatchery get marked as opposed to a state run hatchery.Why?Because that puts those fish off limits to the sportsman.None of this has anything to do with loss of habitat.The problem is 43 years old and it's called the Boldt Decision.

[Omega3]

Don't forget who crafted this 10 year plan.I have a proposition for anyone here.Let's partner up and save some money together.For every 10 dollars You contribute I will give 1 dollar.I can spend as much as I want when I want and You can only spend a dollar a day for six weeks out of the year.When we run out of money you have to pay me 10,000 dollars because our plan has failed.Any takers?Welcome to Washington resourse management.

[tsuribaka]

Draw your own conclusions and support what makes sense to you but when even the authors of the Plan don't believe more cuts will make a discernible difference my vote is we try something different instead of doubling down on the pattern of harvest cutting that hasn't changed the population decline trends for the last 30 years.

I could be mistaken as it's been several days since I read the article and might've missed or forgotten but weren't they mainly trying to say that in regards to just the Stilly?  I mean if they wanted a real argument shouldn't they have included all of the other rivers that are for all intents and purposes, bigger players in terms of fishing?  I guess what I'm saying is that I've heard that the Stilly is basically not a river worth fishing at this point because there are very few fish in it.  Wouldn't this be an apples to oranges argument?  If say the Sno or Sky or a different river for example, that was a larger contributor was having the same issues?  Well that would be a different story, imo.

Go read the Plan. The focus is on the Stilly but if adopted the Plan will impact fishing across the Sound and out to the ocean.

Look at pg 39 of this file WDFW Staff presented to the Commission on 12 Jan. If the proposed management scheme had been applied last year using preseason estimates (i.e., what they are proposing to do this year and on for the next decade) there would have been no season at all in MA7 or MA8, no winter season in MA9 and the quota for the MA9 summer season would be cut by over 80%. That isn't just chinook directed fishing - that will impact all fisheries because every time you hook a shaker when you're fishing for coho or pinks it counts as 0.12 of a fish against the quota. And oh by the way if Alaska or Canada go over their allocation they get to say "oops sorry" and our seasons will get cut to make up for it.

All because the Stilly fish population continues to decline.

So no, it's not a local problem just on the Stilly.

And don't get too comfortable just because you don't fish the North Sound. Once MA7-9 are completely shut down and the Stilly fish still don't recover where do you think they will close next? 4-6 will be gone and probably 10 for good measure just in case a fish or two might take the scenic route. It will be combat fishing as people crowd into any areas left open and the quotas will be filled in a heartbeat.

To those that sincerely believe overharvest is the still primary problem and this is the price we need to pay to ensure we have fishing for the long term I can respect that. But the way I read it the available information indicates that harvest reduction below current levels is a convenient scapegoat for the bureaucrats to make it look like they are taking strong action even though even they clearly don't believe it will work. It's easier than telling 4.5 million people they need to change their day to day behavior. By the time it becomes clear that populations are still declining after completely shutting down all fishing they will be retired or off to their next gig anyway.

[tsuribaka]

Don't forget who crafted this 10 year plan.I have a proposition for anyone here.Let's partner up and save some money together.For every 10 dollars You contribute I will give 1 dollar.I can spend as much as I want when I want and You can only spend a dollar a day for six weeks out of the year.When we run out of money you have to pay me 10,000 dollars because our plan has failed.Any takers?Welcome to Washington resourse management.

I'm really confused - are you saying that you don't trust the Plan because the Tribes had undue influence over it but you want to support the Plan's harvest reduction proposal anyway? If you are suspicious and angry about the way the Plan was developed I would have thought you would oppose implementing it.

If you oppose the Plan I'll be happy even if you don't buy every element of my argument 100%.

[Omega3]

Nothing I posted supports anything tribal or the crappy proposed plan.Perhaps you are confused on who posts what.

[tsuribaka]

Omega 3 you are correct - it was mustang65fbk who posted about shutting down the seasons for a year or two.

My apologies.

[Chasin Baitman]

I don't buy the habitat baloney.There are more restrictions now than ever.Logging has increased buffers.Shoreline restrictions have increased.Anyone try to build a house near the water lately?Land trust holdings are at all time highs.Water quality is better now than in the 70's when our ports were toxic soup.The Nisqually's reclaimed an entire delta.The Great Lakes have a great population of Chinook that were started from zero from our brood stock.Do you think they have better habitat than we do.?The habitat argument is a crock,same as the people that say we are cutting all the trees down.There is plenty of good habitat left that is not being used for fish production.

Broadly speaking, the problem with salmon does not come down to just one thing.  That's why there are 4 "H"s in the 4 "H"s (There's also predation, which doesn't conveniently start with an "H")

From system to system the problems are more specific.  The Tidal Exchange article pretty clearly lays out that the problem with the Stilly IS habitat (https://tidalexchange.com/2018/01/04/wdfw-gives-up-puget-sound-fishing-for-nothing/).  One the Nooksack, which is another constraining stock, only 40% of the available habitat is being utilized.  The problem is not enough fish returning.  Likely predation and overharvest being the culprits.

I don't think this PSCHMP is that surprising in the context of..."Harvest" is the only lever WDFW can move.  And they can only move it for recreational and non-tribal commercial chinook (of which there is not very much - so that really just leaves recreational).   The "Hatchery" component is tribally-run on the Stilly.  They'd need a time machine and much more clout to address the "Habitat" component.  "Hydro" isn't a factor on the Stilly.  And the predation part, assuming seals are the issue, is NOAA.

So it appears that WDFW has its hands tied.  Which i think is the ultimately the problem!  POOR LEADERSHIP.  We've got managers who shrug, point fingers and give excuses why they can't do things.  DOJ, Tribes, NOAA, Boldt, not enough money, etc. etc.  In the private sector when is it ever acceptable to tell a board, "sorry guys, nothing we can do". All we've gotten from WDFW is decades of declines of both natural origin and hatchery production, and smaller and smaller seasons.  WDFW has failed utterly and completely.

Solutions exist, it will take strong leadership to find them.  We are very far from that right now.

[Omega3]

Tsuribaka,no problem.When the tribes play by the same rules as the rest of us maybe I will be interested in what they have to say.Until then all I can offer them is the salute.

[mustang65fbk]

Omega 3 you are correct - it was mustang65fbk who posted about shutting down the seasons for a year or two.

My apologies.

Yes, I was the one who posed the question of if we shut fishing down entirely for a season or two, would it increase the salmon population?  I can't imagine that it wouldn't. 

[tsuribaka]

The Commission held a conference call meeting today. The audio transcript of the conference call is here:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/01/audio_jan2318.html

There is also a news release here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jan2318a/

Commissioner McIssac proposed direction to the Director and Staff to continue negotiations focusing on
* amending the fisheries restriction elements of the Plan including average compliance versus the originally proposed annual hard cap
* continuing 2017 management objectives and controlling models for 2018 North of Falcon
* connecting with ongoing Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations
* introducing non-fishing conservation measures including increased hatchery production, seal/sea lion control and habitat restoration

He further proposed directing the Director and Staff to brief the Commission "regularly" in executive session and in public meetings at significant points prior to final decisions.

The Commission discussion seemed to really fixate on the non-fishing conservation measures and that is what is prominent in the news release. Not a bad thing in and of itself but I felt like the other elements of his proposal got a bit lost in the shuffle and the direction to the Director and Staff on those points wasn't as clear as I would have hoped. Also there was no vote which I feel also may have watered down the direction.

I'd be interested to hear from those with more experience with these proceedings but I don't have a high level of confidence the Department will act as I want them to under this direction. I think concerned citizens will need to continue to monitor their actions closely.

[Rokefin]

Omega 3 you are correct - it was mustang65fbk who posted about shutting down the seasons for a year or two.

My apologies.

Yes, I was the one who posed the question of if we shut fishing down entirely for a season or two, would it increase the salmon population?  I can't imagine that it wouldn't.

I'm down in Cali, but I agree with Mustang, I would not have a problem with forgoing a season to help stabilize the salmon population. Fortunately we have salmon groups here doing great things to help the salmon populations.
Golden Gate Salmon association is a great example of doing good salmon works.

The tribe needs to follow the same rules as everybody else - period!
I also think river fishing should be closed permanently - imagine how healthy the salmon populations would be if the salmon could have a chance to do their thing - we wouldn't have a salmon problem, it would be busier  in the ocean though....

[BayWolf]

tsuribaka,  I too am concerned about the lack of firm direction.  One of the highlights was the conversation about "conservation hatchery's" and the burden of begging for the funding. I believe Commissioner McIssac mentioned a 5 million dollar figure.  The intent is good, the method is skewed in my opinion.  I only heard a very brief mention of cost share, and that was by Com. Baker.  This should be a 50/50 split cost share with the treaty tribes.  Or, there could be perpetual by the creation of a "gaming license", much like we have a "fishing license".  Those non-tribal citizen's who wish to go on a sovereign nation and gamble, should have to purchase a license for such activity. The proceeds could be used for habitat/fish recovery.

The other thing I found very interesting was Ron Warren's comment that "the Commission is going to be sick of seeing his face, because he is going to be briefing them so much."  Two things here, 1. The Commission has drunk the Kool-aid that WDFW decides what and when it will share information with the Commission. 2. By validating selective information sharing by the department, the Commission is sending a very clear message to the stakeholders that the Department is trustworthy in all it's dealings.

I understand on the surface that the Senior Staff of WDFW looks like it will be more transparent, however, THEY will be the ones who decide what to share with the Commission (in executive session, without public oversight) and then the Commission will decide what of that information is shared with the public.  Am I the only one who still see's absolute secrecy in this? It's just lipstick on a pig! They pop the smoke and wave the wand and now we all applaud because we have transparency in our fisheries!

Finally, WHERE IN THE HELL WERE THE TRIBAL REPS ON THIS CALL?  Over and over we sit around hashing and rehashing proposals, solutions, ideas and counter proposals. Then in the end, the puppets have to run over to their MASTERS and beg for permission to do anything.  Let's be very clear here. The TRIBES are the puppet masters. You can put all the facade in front to that you want, but once you peel back all the BS you are left with the truth. That truth is, The Commission and the Department MUST obey what the tribes tell them. It is very evident by the absolute refusal to even approach the tribes in public. Hell, they are so afraid of the tribes, they won't even publish the meeting schedules for the North of Falcon!

On the 2nd of Feb. @ 8:30, the Commission will be holding yet another conference call. However, this time they will be discussing our petition calling on them to convert the North of Falcon policy to a WAC (Washington Administrative Code). Following the call, the Commission will vote on the conversion request. If the Commission rejects the conversion, it will be a VERY CLEAR message to the stakeholders that they have no, and never did have any intention of supporting open and fair negotiations.

[croaker stroker]

    I just don't know how we go from a 10 Year Chinook plan to an automatic rifle.  Sooo...........you guys had some earthquakes out there?   Hmmm...........

Yat

Yat,

8.0 in Alaska, two 5.0 in N. California, one 4.0 near my home.

Recommend speculating on beachfront property near Zzyxx, California.

[mustang65fbk]

Sweet baby Jesus yes! Hopefully some more things will go our way and maybe we'll get a decent fishing season this year.

[BayWolf]

We have petitioned the Commission to consider changing the North of Falcon Policy to a WAC (Rule). The current policy is advisory only, and the Department can ignore parts or all at there whim.  If it were a WAC, they are bound to follow it.  The Commission will discuss our request on 2 Feb at 8:30 on a conference call. There will be NO PUBLIC INPUT on the call allowed, but you can dial in and listen to the discussion.  Since there is no input during the call, it is URGENT that you send a message to the Commission voicing your support.  There are those in the Department that don't want this and are bending the Boards ear. These same players that advocate that secrets are good in the fisheries!

Please take just a few minutes to inform the WDFW Commission that you support and favor the soon-to-be considered (Feb. 2nd) change of North of Falcon Policy to a WAC (WA Administrative Code). This move will increase stakeholder participation, and the Commission's oversight in the rule making process.
the link below provides a quick and easy form to get it done.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/contact.html


Here is the link to the Agenda of the call. It has the instructions on how to get a call in number and pin to be on the call.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/agenda_feb0218.html

I CANNOT STRESS HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. IF THE COMMISSION VOTES "NO", EVERYTHING WE'VE WORKED FOR IN GETTING TRANSPARENCY IN THE FISHERIES WILL BE LOST!  PLEASE, SEND A MESSAGE OF SUPPORT, AND PLAN ON BEING ON THE CALL IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.  THANK YOU!

[pgbrown]

Done, thank you for your hard work on this.

[Chasin Baitman]

DONE.  thanks for your work Bay Wolf. 

[BruceL2_Fish]

Baywolf, thank you for all of your effort and prodding more of us to become aware and involved.   If we want any kind of a voice we have to participate.   Again great job!!!

[BayWolf]

I appreciate the kind words, however, the thanks goes to all of you and the the thousands of concerned citizens who have, and continue to support this effort through emails, calls and attending the meetings! There are so many good people who care, they just need to know how to participate. Thank you all!

[StreamFixer]

Very enlightening article in the Salmon & Steelhead Journal this month.  Basically says this plan was crafted in secrecy, is based on little or no data/science (unless you agree that Political Science is a true scientific discipline) and stinks...

StreamFixer

[BayWolf]

Very enlightening article in the Salmon & Steelhead Journal this month.  Basically says this plan was crafted in secrecy, is based on little or no data/science (unless you agree that Political Science is a true scientific discipline) and stinks...

StreamFixer

Can you post a link for that article?

[StreamFixer]

Subscription, printed magazine...  Not sure there is a link available..

StreamFixer

[StreamFixer]

Article scanned and e-mailed to Baywolf.  Check your hot mail for something from russl

StreamFixer