I thought I would share this with folks frankly because while this is about the Columbia it is also about the disregard of Commission decisions by staff. For the purpose transparency Tim is my brother and helped me with salmon restoration in the Satsop for years and eventually became a Willapa Adviser and advocate for natural salmon populations.

Formatting is bit off guys but it was a PDF C&P which is a bit of a bitch to post up.



Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855
thfwa.org

August 25, 2020 via: email in PDF format
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98504

Re: Columbia River Basin Salmon Management Policy

Dear Commissioners:

The Advocacy believes it appropriate to look back in time to determine what happened to the fish in the Columbia when considering the best path forward. On Dec. 9, 1908 President Teddy
Roosevelt delivered his annual address to Congress and advocated removing the management of the Columbia back to the federal level. He explained his rationale with the following:

The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River are now but a fraction of what they were twenty-five years ago, and what they would be now if the United States Government had taken complete charge of them by intervening between Oregon and Washington. During these twenty-five years the fishermen of each State have naturally tried to take all they could get, and the two legislatures have never been able to agree on joint action of any kind adequate in degree for the protection of the fisheries. At the moment the fishing on the Oregon side is practically closed, while there is no limit on the Washington side of any kind, and no one can tell what the courts will decide as to the very statutes under which this action and non-action result. Meanwhile very few salmon reach the spawning grounds, and probably four years hence the fisheries will amount to nothing; and this comes from a struggle between the associated, or gill-net, fishermen on the one hand, and the owners of the fishing wheels up the river.

At the time he spoke, no dams existed in the Columbia Basin. Aberdeen was the largest city in the state with a population around 40,000. Large portions of the state contained vast old growth
forests. Recreational fishing was nearly non-existant and the excessive harvest came exclusively from a commercial industry revolving around canneries that could ship the harvest out of the
region via newly completed rail roads. Since the fishers supplying the canneries reimbursed the public nearly zero for the fish they landed, canned springer Chinook was selling in New York as a “poor man’s protein” at half the price of canned chicken. To keep this price advantage, the commercial fishers turned to the state to produce fish out of hatcheries as a means to continue the public subsidy (free fish) the industry was reliant upon.

Fast forward. The general public poured hundreds of millions of dollars into hatchery production. WDFW encourage recreational fishing as a means to increase funding for the Department.
At the same time, those citizens who lived up stream watched as the flow of fish arriving inland declined year after year. Recreational license holders who fished locally found themselves relying upon traveling down to the lower stretches to catch salmon. Those who didn’t fish and received their value from experiencing the salmon spawning near their home witnessed stream after stream go barren.
Then we enter the time period after the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Natural spawning salmon and steelhead were granted ESA protection that required the rebuilding of the natural spawners. Hundreds of millions in tax dollars were brought to bear. Citizens living upstream were additionally severely impacted financially by the loss of timber harvest, irrigation capacity, subdivision opportunities, high cost sewage treatment improvements, etc. The result is those living upstream were being required to pay billions out of their pockets and businesses to supposedly restore the salmon. WDFW focused its attention on protected fishing opportunities on the open ocean to just inside the bars as little if any recovery occurred. To our knowledge, every stock that went on the ESA endangered species list remained on the list.

The Chinook River Basin Salmon Management Plan was passed in 2013 after an intense and controversial public debate over salmon management in the Columbia. At that time, many thought a means forward to recovery with fairness to all would be the outcome. Instead, turnover of members of the Commission stopped implementation and today the Policy is once again fueling public controversy over yet another proposal to increase commercial gillnet opportunities in the lower Columbia.

One of the key components of the Policy was a “buy back” provision wherein public funds would be used to purchase Columbia/Willapa and Columbia/Grays Harbor Commercial Gillnet licenses. The Department delayed development of a program for years. When Commissioner(s) finally grew impatient, the Department was directed to deliver a draft program during the next meeting of the Commission.

Advocacy President Tim Hamilton had researched previous buy back programs that followed the Boldt decision. He offered to share with the Department his research and knowledge of small business principals attained during his 35 year long career as the Executive Director of a statewide trade association of small business interests (motor fuel marketers). The Department accepted and he met in Olympia with management. It was clear to the Advocacy that after all these years the Department had not invested any significant effort into producing a plan for consideration by the Commission. Surprised by this, Mr. Hamilton mentioned the language in the Policy on a buy back provision and requests for production during the last
Commission meeting as the reason for his offer. WDFW Region 5 head Ron Roller responded with “Those gillnets aren’t going anywhere”. Hamilton responded with “But the Policy says.....”. He came back again with “Those gillnets aren’t going anywhere.”

The Advocacy came away from the meeting convinced the Department management had not in the past, and would unlikely in the future feel duty bound to honor a Policy passed by the Commission in concert with the public. Same goes for a request for work product from a Commisioner - Page 2, Columbia River Policy Page 3, Columbia River Policy unless the request provides an opportunity for the Department to promote an action item it
desires without disclosing it’s role to the public. As President Roosevelt stated, “ ..... the two legislatures have never been able to agree on joint action of any kind adequate in degree for the protection of the fisheries.” Recognizing the political polarization that was adversely effecting the resources, the citizens of Washington likewise decided intervention was required. In 1994, legislative management was replaced by a nine member Fish & Wildlife Commission. Salaries were set at a minuscule level to insure applicants were motivated by a desire to serve the people rather than an opportunity to receive personal remuneration. While all nine were expected to serve the interests of all the citizens, the state
was divided regionally to insure regional fairness.

The recent actions to modify the Policy by increasing commercial harvest is telling when considering whether the formation of a Commission actually rose to expectations of the supporters of the ballot measure. While one can accept certain members of the Commission may be sympathetic to the gillnet license holders, the Commission formation was designed to insure fairness for all the citizens not just the few who have political support. Since over 90% of the state’s citizens do not fish with either a net or a pole, which of you today will stand up for their rights? Are the people who reside in the Columbia Basin not entitled to see recovery and witness spawning salmon in their local streams? Is it fair to those who recreationally fish that they be required to drive to the coast? Is it fair to ask the taxpayers to continue to provide millions in subsidies that deliveries the equivalent of a typical monthly truck payment to the 100 or so to holder’s of a commercial gillnet license? Is it appropriate that these license holders pay less for the fish they catch than the public spends to have images of salmon spray painted on storm water drain lids?
Is it not understandable why so many who have dealt with the Department over the years believe WDFW is a walking talking poster child for the political slogan “Drain the swamp?”

The unfair treatment of the citizens living upstream is not isolated to just the Columbia Basin. The Chehalis River is the second largest stream in the state and once again, the harvest is set for the benefit of commercial interests on the ocean and lower stretches of the river. Just like in the Columbia, many of those residing upstream feel they are being treated like share-croppers rather than stakeholders.
One example of the Department’s attitude toward those who live upstream came across in a phone call over a decade ago between former WDFW Director Phil Anderson and later to become Advocacy Member Ron Schweitzer. A long time recreational fisher who dedicated a significant effort to help locals improve and restore fish runs in the Chehalis Basin, Ron called Anderson to explain he was on the water today and could not find any salmon in the river. Anderson’s response was telling. He advised Ron that if he wanted to catch a salmon he needed to go out on a charter boat out of Westport. Ron responded by reminding Mr. Anderson of his historical financial interests in charter boats and the call abruptly ended.

Returning back to the Columbia, retirees of WDFW shared a similar experience when they expressed a concern that an action proposed by the Department could adversely effect trout fishing Page 4, Columbia River Policy in streams that was important culturally and economically to those who live in the Basin. They state the response from upper management that locals who wanted to fish could drive down and fish for salmon at Buoy 10 in the mouth of the Columbia.
The members of the Advocacy request each member of the Commission to ask themselves who would benefit if the latest effort to increase commercial harvest in the lower Columbia is successful?
How much could each gillnet license holder expect to receive in the pocket book? Is a vote in favor of the proposal in the best interest of the taxpayers across the state? Is passage an action that a reasonable person could view as respectful to those who reside in the Columbia Basin? How would such a move improve the chances of restoring salmon runs and getting Columbia stocks off the ESA list?

In the commentary prior to the vote, we hope each Commissioner will share his/her on these with the public. You might also take the opportunity to answer the question we get asked all time.
“Does the Commissioners work for the Director of WDFW or does the Director work for the Commission?”

Recognizing the responsibilities of the Commission is especially crucial at this point. The Advocacy fully understands the large and complex task facing members of the Commission. We recognize
that the statue creating the Commission provided the ability to delegate powers down to the Director. However, the statute does not relieve the Commission from its responsibilities upon delegation and further more, the Department would simply ignore it anyway. Whether we like it or not, “The buck stops” on each of your’s desk and the Commission is responsible for oversight of the Department and its staff.

In closing, the three of us live in Grays Harbor. If the Advocacy members were to take a position in favor of such a measure in the Chehalis River, we would expect our neighbors and friends that found out about it would demand to see “For Sale Signs in our front yards.” Our only way out would be if they didn’t know what had been done to them or couldn’t figure out who did it to them. Course, that protection would dissipate every morning when we looked into the mirror to brush our teeth as we would know it even if the public didn’t.

For whatever it’s worth.

Tim Hamilton President
Art Holman Vice-President
Ron Schweitzer Secretary/Treasurer