Lower Quinault in 2014

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

  1. underachiever !

    Posts: 623
    suburban hell
    Ratings: +424 / 0
    I read it. I think the primary reason they published it was the author was Trey Combs.
  2. Jason Rolfe Wanderer

    Posts: 1,178
    the beach
    Ratings: +372 / 0
    Yep, I got the same feeling. His is a name that will sell magazines, plain and simple.

    I'm not sure what to think about the fact that the story was written by Combs and published by The Drake. I found it surprising, to say the least, when I pulled that issue out of the mailbox and saw that story. And it certainly made me question some of my assumptions on the matter.
  3. underachiever !

    Posts: 623
    suburban hell
    Ratings: +424 / 0
    I don't know, it seems the situation for steelhead everywhere is mostly a sad state of affairs. It's tough to look at what happens on the OP (with the netting and such) and not want to lay the blame on the tribes, but they really only impact a small number of rivers that at one point had substantial runs. I know that every river is different and on some level the OP rivers feel like the last hope for wild steelhead to have a real chance but that isn't the tribes fault. If the Puget Sound and SW Wa rivers were still flush with fish I'm sure the complaints with the tribal practices would be way less. It's come to the point where everything else is ruined and now we're not in the position to change things and to the tribes I'm sure it would come across as "Do as I say" not "Do as I do" in terms of maintaining sustainable fisheries.
  4. Chris Bellows The Thought Train

    Posts: 1,626
    The Salt
    Ratings: +753 / 0
    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.
  5. sopflyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 707
    Where the fish are located
    Ratings: +418 / 0
    well either way you slice it, the qin have chosen a different path for their fisheries program and science. it comes down to management goals. they want lots of fish, big ones. most fly guys want wild only regardless of numbers. sure more is better, but more takes time.
    kamishak steve likes this.
  6. John Hicks Owner and operator of Sea Run Pursuits

    Posts: 2,129
    Olympia
    Ratings: +180 / 1

    But again, by raising the bar, you defacto reduce the use of the resource.
    James Mello likes this.
  7. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    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.
  8. John Hicks Owner and operator of Sea Run Pursuits

    Posts: 2,129
    Olympia
    Ratings: +180 / 1

    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.
  9. Adrian Active Member

    Posts: 109
    Ratings: +47 / 0
    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.
  10. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    Yup... Difference of opinion :)
  11. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0

    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.
  12. kamishak steve Active Member

    Posts: 359
    Seattle, Wa
    Ratings: +67 / 0

    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.
  13. sopflyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 707
    Where the fish are located
    Ratings: +418 / 0
    between tribal land and the park there is a small amount of usfs land. yes some of this was logged. the usfs of days past logged quite a bit. point is there,is not much there. the park is not logged. the lower Queets was. i marvel at folks marveling at "old growth" here even though it was slicked off long ago. as far as lwd recruitment, i don't see the usfs land having much impact here. Steve, where are the gnarly logging on the quinalt? not saying it didn't happen, believe me logging is gnarly on any stream. however these,are likely not usfs holdings or large,land owner. they are likely small time homestead types with parcels under 80 ac. heres another interesting fun fact. qin members have timber allocated to families for them to manage. yet because they are part of qin they are,treated like large,land owners and subject to different harvest laws complying with the Washington forest and fish laws. so while joe q whiteguy can slide,in under,different rules upstream and rape his fish stream cause he,is,a small land guy, tribal members,cannot. this,has causes much friction with forestry and harvest layout. just some fun facts for,you.
  14. kamishak steve Active Member

    Posts: 359
    Seattle, Wa
    Ratings: +67 / 0
    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:
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/misc/FISC_1947-2006/pdf/1st-7thFISCs-CD/8thFISC/Poster_Bountry.pdf
    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...