Lower Quinault in 2014

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Slate Run, Nov 29, 2013.

  1. not yet as i have no way to for at least a few days.

    did they mention planting diseased fish? did they mention not clipping fish on both the quinault and queets? did they mention the tribe pushing for lower escapement goals on the queets? did they mention the lower quinault is listed as the only non-healthy run of wild steelhead on any major north coast river in the last SASI report (2002)?

    the netting bothers me the least.

  2. But again, by raising the bar, you defacto reduce the use of the resource.
    James Mello likes this.
  3. And the minimal harvest that does occur is the least of the issues wild steelhead have
    No, you simply make it so that the playing field isn't level for harvest. It just moves back to money buys privilege.
    Bob Triggs and Chris Johnson like this.

  4. Which is perfectly fine by me. If some idiot wants to spend a large amount of money to harvest a 12lb native fish, let them. It will keep 99% of the wild fish harvest safe.

    I think this is where we diverge in opinions. You and I have had long talks about this very subject on our way to the river many times. I believe in pay to play. You do not.
  5. You and I aren't that different...or really at all. The article delve into the brood stock program which I disagree with. If a fish is hatchery, identify it for gods sake. I never said I agree with what they are doing, quite the contrary. The only way is Mother Nature.

    What I was getting at is energy and investment well spent. Getting all burnt at the tribes yields ZERO results.

    As far as The Drake, I feel it is a respectable publication. In the "Props" section it called out the WDFW's gene pool program on the Toutle/N. Fork Lewis. The article titled "When is a Wild Steelhead No Longer Wild" provided information on how the Quinault runs their program. It discussed gill net sizes, timing of runs, location of hatchery fish in the system, brood stock and ocean/fresh time spent. It discussed the shift to having a hatchery run and a wild run. The article explained how efforts are in place to keep the two separate. It was an informative article, it showed the Quinault hatchery program understood the importance of wild fish and their methods to keep the two separate. Does it work, I don't know. Did I sign off on it saying I agree with it 100% and they are doing a great job, no.

    Time spent on WDFW to remove hatcheries on waters they have complete control over will provide science and proof to the tribes. That is why I believe time is best spent on sending letters and submitting comments to WDFW during their comment periods and even when they aren't asking for comments. We don't have a treaty in place with WDFW, we can push to make a change and I believe this is where the push should be.

    Personally, I've submitted comments to the EPA about Bristol Bay and my most recent comments to WDFW was related to the Toutle gene pools.
  6. Yup... Difference of opinion :)

  7. So just so that everyone understands. Cook Creek while operated by the tribe is a federal hatchery. Here's something from their web page.

    The US Fish and Wildlife Service works closely with the Quinault Indian Nation’s biologists to guide the program at Quinault NFH. The USFWS also cooperates with Quinault Indian Nation’s programs on Lake Quinault and Salmon River, and the Hoh Tribe on the north coast.

  8. The Upper reaches of the quinault were raped by some of the gnarliest logging practices in the history of the state. Your idea of a "pristine habitat" has been plagued by siltation, channel erosion, and lack of LWD for decades, which is credited in part for the steady decline in blueback sockeye that are endemic to the Quinault watershed. Before it was contained in National Park, the Upper Quinault valley was a resource extraction free for all. In effect, whitey already had his crack at the resource, and now, all of a sudden that he decides to get his act together, he expects those "downstream land occupants", as you referred to them, to be 100% on board with all his management opportunities? Where was this quaint little co-management idea when the upper quinault was being logged into the riparian zone, and destroying the spawning habitat of the fish that those "downstream land occupants" relied on.

    You show me a good example where the industry and government has been "accountable" for the resource like you expect the tribe to be. How many logging companies that have paid reparations for damage they have caused in erosion, siltation, valley modification, etc, or commercial fishing outfits that have compensated the public or the park for the diminished returns of salmon in so many of our streams, etc. You're not going to find any, or the ones you do will be a slap on the wrist compared to the decades of profit they enjoyed from exploiting those resources. It blows me away that you and so many others are willing to turn a blind eye to these industries when it creates a jobs and an economy that you benefit from, but the second that the tribe has a similar approach (albeit on a much much smaller scale in terms of damage as well as profit), you jump all over them as if they were robbing you personally.
    Chris Johnson likes this.
  9. Hey Sop,
    I am not really sure what you are asking, but as for the logging, I was talking only about historic logging in the Upper Quinault Valley, not current use. The damage done a long time ago (meaning prior to the 1938 when it the area received park designation and became protected) still has a lingering effect on the valley. If you want to read more, here is a great paper about it:
    I was not aware of those challenges to the QIN members regarding logging, it's interesting stuff how all of that shakes out. Truthfully, i don't know much at all about how timber is managed on the reserve...

Share This Page