Wow! Can't a guy leave home for a week without returning to fish management malfeasance?

It would help to have current and accurate information, but it's apparent our public servants aren't willing to share that in a timely manner so we can even fairly assess the situation. Why? What is there about public service they aren't understanding?

I feel like none of us is capable of getting Jeff Koening's attention in a constructive way. There is one party that can: the State Legislature. And we each have access to our Senators and Representatives. Perhaps we can influence the Senate Natural Resources Committee to call Jeff in for some Departmental accountability. Something along the lines of, "why should the Legislature fully fund WDFW if they aren't going to fully prosecute co-management of the public fishery resource on behalf of the non-treaty fishing constituents?" WDFW has options. The co-management agreement with the tribes that began in the 1980s has to have been predicated on the intention to equitably share the harvestable surplus of public fisheries (subject to treaty rights) at the 50% level. Any other interpretation would seem to be deriliction of duty.

It's true that WDFW can't tell the Quinaults or any other self-regulating tribe what to do. However, WDFW has access to the same courts that the tribes do, and for the same reasons, but this time perhaps with the shoe on the other foot.

Some have suggested not buying a 2005 fishing license. License fees are but a relatively small part of the WDFW budget, and the few that would not purchase licenses (remember, most license buyers go trout fishing, not salmon and steelhead) would have no influence on WDFW behavior. The Legislature approves 100% of WDFW's budget, and Koenings will be very responsive to funding cuts by the Legislature. That's the only place we can reach him, in my estimation.

Some have also suggested having the feds step in. Careful what you ask for, and fortunately, you ain't gonna' get it. Remember, the federal agencies are obligated to protect treaty fishing rights, but not necessarily yours. It's up to the state, and the state's recourse is the same federal court that has had continuing jurisdiction in this case for the last 30 years.

Failing that, UP THE REVOLUTION!

All that, and I'm a supporter of treaty Indian fishing rights, but I don't care much for abuse or inequity.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.