Well, it's not even an opinion. It's literally how to sue for discrimination, which he apparently wants to do.

It's too bad being stupid doesn't hurt. I know I say that a lot, but I think it a lot, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Alright Salmo, Monday morning quarterback time…

What can WDFW do better? I’ll play.

Well let me start by saying somewhat seriously “everything”. Now that I've got that out of the way lets talk some specifics. I understand that conservation groups and the tribe often have the departments hands pretty tied up. With that said, my biggest gripe with the WDFW is solely of their own doing. The WDFW needs to improve on their giant lack of transparency and accountability. This current regulation decisions are a prime example of both.

When WDFW came out with the 4 potential management options for coastal steelhead, I was personally caught somewhat off guard. I was well aware of the struggles happening to the south, and by no means do I have my head in the sand when it comes to wild steelhead trends, but numbers that were adequate for a normal fishery in the Quillayute system appeared to be there. When we met with James Lossee he expressed that although the predicted return was large enough to support our normal fishery, he felt that the added pressure from the Chehalis area warranted increased protection. This is the first management scenario that I have been a part of that didn't involve a goal of meeting the escapement number. So, James was asked repeatedly, what the new goal would be (i.e. what decrease in encounters are we hoping to get to). Neither he, nor anyone else at WDFW has provided an answer.

If WDFW doesn't have a goal, or a plan, then I would argue that they are just making rules for the sake of making rules which I don't support. An April closure should reduce at least a quarter of encounters (based on creel data for the Quillayute system). Why isn't that enough? Again, no answer. At the very core of all of this, that seems to be the most important puzzle piece and its missing.

WDFW could do a much better job at including and actually listening to various stakeholders. When concern was expressed in regards to the no boat fishing rule, James asked for alternative ideas. I heard some that I feel would also reduce angler impacts without excluding a huge number of users. Some of those were:

No fishing from an inflatable device. This discourages Chehalis area guides and anglers that are unfamiliar navigating the Sol Duc and Calawah from migrating to Forks and more importantly, would give low water refuge to the fish in the upper rivers when things got too low to float in a hard boat. Reduces pressure, reduces impacts. Check and check!

A days of the week closure. We could close the rivers 1,2,3,4,? Days a week to reduce impacts to an acceptable level (again, WDFW would have to actually inform us what that acceptable level is). Instead of a full closure in April, this strategy spreads the impacts throughout the entire run. It allows for monitoring throughout the season, and would allow for in-season adjustments (another place WDFW could improve) based on wether the run appears to be coming in above or below the forecast. The tribe manages their fishery this way, halibut seasons follow this approach. Again, it reduces pressure, reduces impacts, doesn't favor any user group or exclude anyone. Seems reasonable to me.

Close the upper rivers for the entire season and leave the lower rivers open. If you think this would condense anglers too much, just wait until we are all fighting for the same few beaches to stand on. Steelhead stack up in larger numbers in the upper river than they do in the lower. The river is smaller the higher you go making fish easier to find. Unfortunately a lot more fish are caught as they attempt to spawn when you get higher in the system as well. In this scenario, every high water event would move significant numbers of fish up river. These pushes of fish would get a free pass to the upper rivers where they would be left alone, achieving our goal of reducing impacts and reducing pressure while once again keeping the fishery accessible to everyone.

Those 3 ideas in particular would substantially decrease angler encounters and would regulate all anglers fairly. Why were none of them considered you might ask? WDFW has again, failed to give any explanation. Theres that pesky transparency issue again eh.

WDFW could use better science. By better science I mean real, unbiased data. I saw the graph you mentioned showing that boat anglers on the Hoh caught what was it, 80? percent of the fish. I look at that graph and all it tells me is that fishing guides with clients lobbing bobbers are 80% more effective at catching steelhead than the average spey angler. Anybody shocked by that? Anybody? Simple creel data cannot say how much the fishing from the boat increased that percentage of catch because both angler skill and chosen technique are huge factors that aren't being accounted for. WDFW had the opportunity to get better data on this when the stretch from Morgans to the park boundary closed to fishing from a boat. They could have made it a point to get creel data from the various user groups that were utilizing this section of river under the new regulation. I would especially be interested to see how the guides who were getting clients out of the boat to fish with conventional gear’s catch numbers would compare to those using the same techniques from the boat. At the end of the day, I certainly feel that fishing from a boat is an advantage, but I guarantee that the guys pounding on the best spots from the bank did some serious catching too. Would you not agree that this is obviously flawed data that WDFW is pushing to justify an unproven rule? I’m back to the lack of accountability.

WDFW could take more time to discuss the ins and outs of regulation changes with people that are consistently on the water. This process unnecessarily moved extremely fast (there aren't any wild steelhead in numbers yet on the coast so why did we have to make this rushed decision?) Had they taken the time to thoroughly vet each option, maybe they would have considered some of the unintended consequences of the no fishing from boats rule. I’m going to take a not so wild guess and say that there will be a huge pressure shift to the upper rivers with this rule. The water is smaller and therefor easier to fish from shore. Fish stack up in certain “glory holes” where anglers can pound away on them vs trying to search them out of the lower river as they travel through. If you are one of those folks that is worried not only about catch and release mortality but also about the possible loss of fitness for spawning fish post catch and release, wouldn't the upper river closure scenario be a better one vs a beat the hell out of the refuge spots in the upper rivers from the bank scenario?

Thats not all… WDFW was overly concerned that closures to the south would shift all of the pressure to the Forks rivers. Why aren't they just as concerned that by taking away fishing from a boat, a huge chunk the fishing pressure is going to shift from the Sol Duc (the healthiest of all of the coastal streams) to the Hoh and Bogie (not in nearly as good of shape as the Duc) because, as the people who regularly fish these rivers know, the Sol Duc is damn near impossible to wade in most places and those other rivers just so happen to accommodate it quite well. And once again, why can't I get WDFW to give a reasonable explanation for this?

WDFW could do a better job of accounting for both the social and economic impacts of its decisions. Let me be clear, I care about wild steelhead a whole damn lot and absolutely believe that when needed, conservation should always take priority over economic impact. With that said, I look at the costs to small businesses (not just my guide business) and the Forks community as a whole and I can't help but feel some anger. Why? Because the small details matter. I obviously don't agree with these new regulations as they pertain to the wild steelhead fishery (I’m speaking strictly Quillayute system here) as a whole but I even more adamantly disagree with WDFW implementing these new rules on the 14th of December. In the few days since the rules went into effect, the bogie hatchery parking lot went from 20+ trailers a day to 1 on the 14th (and yes, conditions were fantastic on the 14th). I saw 2 the next day and 2 the day after that. During the peak of the hatchery return, with good conditions and fish available. I want to puke. WDFW’s creel data shows that from 2015-2019, on average 9.4 wild steelhead are caught and released in the Bogie from when the hatchery fish start to come in in November all the way to the 15th of January. With a 10% mortality rate thats still less than a 1 fish savings that we get in return for seriously damaging the Bogie hatchery steelhead fishery. Thats not fair to anglers who’s taxes funded those returns, thats not fair to anglers who planned trips to Forks to harvest some steelhead, its a huge hit to an already struggling rural community, and most of all it accomplishes absolutely 0 conservation objectives. The fact that there is no accountability for something so far from what any informed person could consider good management is why I have finally lost all faith in the WDFW.

The social aspect, which again, shouldn't trump important conservation measures, should absolutely still be considered. How many of you caught your first steelhead in the vicinity of a hatchery? The bogie brat fishery is a far cry from what it once was, but it is still one of the biggest producers of November and December timed steelhead in this state. Its still a popular fishery and the one where I see the most beginner anglers participating. We need those new faces to stick around now more than ever to keep this whole fishing thing going. How many anglers will feel so discriminated against from the no boat fishing rule that they will hang up steelheading all together? I know of several personally. I love having the river to myself as much as anyone but I truly feel now more than ever that we are losing the passion for steelhead fishing. If we can't keep people interested, my opinion is that steelhead are far worse off in the long run than they would be in the net of a boat angler. How many of you would have the passion that you have for steelhead if this is the climate that you started your journey in?

Now, to be clear, I do think that moving forward, we need to encourage WDFW to come up with creative regulations that keep rivers open. I am in no way saying that I would rather close the river to everyone if I can’t fish how I want to. I am saying that WDFW could do so much better. THEY NEED TO DO SO MUCH BETTER! There are ideas that achieve the goals we want (Wait, I still don't know what the goal is) that don't exclude large portions of our user group. Its pretty clear that the regs are set in stone for this winter but WDFW is making it clear that until the entire Chehalis Basin recovers, they will continue to impose strong restrictions blanketed over the entire coast regardless of what returns those other rivers experience. I personally hope that those of you that demand that WDFW does a better job, will continue to remind them of such. They aren't holding themselves accountable so we have to. If you don't fish the coast, and you think these no fishing from boat regs aren't heading your way in a hurry, think again. If you only bank fish and you think this will benefit you, I think you will be very unpleasantly surprised as the season gets started. If we can't rally together now in support of each other and in support of better management, I wouldn't expect much fishing opportunity in the future. Uhhhhh ****

As a side note, I only care about disabled fisherman and am now booking trips. If you sit on wheels, I got deals. Really though, as hard as it is to believe, I do care that a lot of folks will be hurt by this rule. I had to cancel the days I had scheduled to take my dad fishing because he can't safely get in and out of the boat. I wish he was younger and in better shape but he's not. This will be the first winter steelhead season we don't get to fish together since he was carrying me around in a backpack. I think that sucks. I have some long time clients that fall into (or should I say out of) the same boat. There are plenty of able bodied people ready to go wade fishing so it has no affect on my bottom dollar but I still care. So should you. And when you get old and crippled, I hope some younger folks advocate for you too. Like it or not, we are in this in some way or another together. By my simple minded logic, when the fish are gone we all lose. I understand that many fishing guides leave a whole lot to be desired (myself included), but I would encourage some of you to keep in mind the blood, sweat, tears and lost sleep that some fishing guides, many of whom I’m lucky to know, have sacrificed in an effort to give back to the resource and the angling community as a whole. Don't get me wrong, I support limited entry on guides even if that leaves me out and I believe that taking advantage of a public resource should come with a lot of giving back. By no means am I sticking up for those just in it for themselves. I’m often embarrassed of many of my peers, but I also know we have all benefited in a lot of ways from some of the fishing guides out there (broodstock programs, helping our hatchery workers when they need it, testifying on behalf of sport fisherman at commission meetings, fighting for many of our shared interests in advisory groups, supporting enforcement, even the techniques that they developed and we learned directly or indirectly that have made days on the water more enjoyable). I do think that those guys have earned the right to not be lumped in with the takers. Even if that goes without saying, some people might not realize that.

Anyway, my arm is tired, someone bench me

Just FYI for those really wondering

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your request for reasonable accommodations. At WDFW, we pride ourselves on supporting inclusivity and access for people of all abilities to enjoy the outdoors.



As fishery managers, we also realize that to preserve any coastal steelhead angling opportunity and recover wild fish in the future, we must take drastic measures to catch fewer fish now. Instead of an outright closure, these restrictions offer a way to help meet conservation objectives while still allowing some, though reduced, fishing opportunity.



Due to the dire situation of these wild runs, we’ve had to make extremely difficult decisions that will help preserve fish for the future. To support conservation of these wild runs, fishing by boat won’t be possible this season.



We maintain information on other ADA-accessible water access sites and other boat-accessible locations on our website and would encourage those interested to make use of that information to plan alternate trips. Many of these locations are not expected to be impacted by the current low forecast numbers, though we understand that these opportunities may differ from your normal experience.



We realize that this is a challenging time for the coastal steelhead community. To share additional feedback, please contact us at fishpgm@dfw.wa.gov. On behalf of WDFW, thank you for your continued engagement in recreational angling and passion for supporting this resource.





Thank you:



Peter Vernie

Licensing Division Manager

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Office Phone: 360-902-2302

Cell Phone: 360-790-5514

If anyone is interested after receiving that email, that's the jumping off point to an ADA discrimination suit...is providing a few fishing areas that are ADA accessible a "reasonable accommodation" so that disabled folks can fish?

The State would argue yes, a disabled person would argue no, and a court would decide.

Fish on...

Todd

Since the Dechutes down in Oregon has been no fishing from a floating device forever I would think WDFW has a pretty good precedent that a rule like that doesn't run afoul of the ADA.

Although it looks like the Deshutes does have this provision:

If a customer is disabled and cannot wade, a special permit may be obtained through Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife which allows one to fish from a boat that is being held in place by a fly fishing Guide while wading. Disabled permits take time to procure with a medical doctor’s proof of disablement

Seahawksteelie,

Thanks for posting again. Yours have been the most thoughtful posts in this thread. I think we and everyone else posting here agrees that transparency and accountability should be top priorities at WDFW. Weird thing is, WDFW claims to value transparency, front and center, on the agency website. I asked the Commission to prohibit the Director and staff from using the term "transparency" in all agency correspondence and other printed matter until they stopped lying to us constituents. No action taken, and no surprise either, since taking action would be a confession that they've been lying to us.

I agree there are some straightforward actions the agency could take to increase its credibility with constituents manyfold, but those simple changes would be painful to the status quo. I understand though; the status quo is revered as though it were God.

!. Live up to the transparency value. How? Pretty simple. Any staff or the Director caught in a provable lie gets 30 days suspension without pay. You see, as it is now, lying pays just as well as truthing, and makes life easier even if you get caught. It's worth the risk since there is no penalty. If lying hurt economically, there would be a strong incentive to simply tell the truth, even if it were embarrassing. For example, when the Department says a particular restriction is necessary for conservation, yet a simple analysis shows little to no conservation will be achieved. Turns out the real reason is because the Tribe made them do it. Can't believe WDFW management is stupid enough to think some of us don't talk with tribal representatives about what happened and why.

2. Transparency would include accountability. Accountability is nigh on impossible as long as the Commission is OK with the Director and upper management lying to constituents. So the only way for there to be accountability is to cause the commissioners to squirm in their seats so badly they get hemorrhoids. Perhaps then they'd require accountability from the Director. If it's required of the Director, he'll require it from everyone downhill from his position.

3. Transparency means complying with the open public meetings act and no more behind closed door meetings with treaty tribes at NOF. That of course means no LOAF and no shirttail riding on the BIA ESA Section 7 permit for Puget Sound fishing, which leads to . . .

4. WDFW submits a plan to NMFS for a ESA 4(d) rule or section 10 permit for PS fisheries under its jurisdiction. It doesn't have to be convenient for NMFS, and NMFS might find it awkward explaining to a federal judge why it holds a state agency hostage to a tribal permit, giving tribes complete authority over non-treaty fishing that by law is under state jurisdiction. WDFW would do well to hire private attorneys for this case, since AAGs are already complicit in giving the tribes whatever they want.

5. There is no one "right" solution for the issue of declining steelhead on the north coast, Chehalis watershed, PS, or inland mid-Columbia runs. There are a lot of ways to achieve conservation objectives. A good start would be to spell out what the conservation objectives are. All we really know is that this season's goal on the north coast is to reduce recreational gear encounters with wild steelhead. WDFW did pick the one specific alternative that most easily, if not best, achieves that. For all that however, I think we deserve a thoughtful and quantitative explanation of the prospective benefits of this measure, compared and contrasted to the benefits of alternative measures. Something that the 4-point proposal fell far, far short of.

I've seen various references to the Dechutes & some Canadian Rivers. There is a big difference. With the Dechutes you are talking about 1 river. What WDFW has done covers not only a large # of rivers but also a large physical area that covers the entire coast except what the Park controls. That really limits opportunity for people with disabilities.

[quote=Salmo g.][quote=elparquito][quote=Salmo g.]

Can you please name one action, other than complete closures, that does as much to reduce angling encounters with wild steelhead?

/quote]


Stop plants/or cut way back winter run steelhead plants......go to summer run steelhead. Would sure stop the encounters, plus summer run are generally better table faire, better weather, lower water conditions, longer hours to fish.....

Tribes would probably not like it, netting would be more difficult but price per pound would probably increase.

The old WDFW plan has not been working, the current "no fishing from boat" isn't going to cut it......SO WDFW lets see another PLAN !!!!!!!

I would suggest, along with Drifter, to totally eliminate wild winter-run plants of any kind where there is an established plan to recover wild fish. This includes wholistic habitat restoration, restoration of salmon to provide MDN, balancing predators with fish populations.

Where the habitat can't societally support a wild run that sustains harvests for NI and I, then hatchery winters are planted and the wild run written off.

As to summers, no stocking where there is a documented native run. In the absence of a native run, stock summers so as to provide a fishery. Let the net managers figure out how to avoid over harvest.

Actually set goals and, if the goal is not met, either do more or give up.

+1,
fb

In Grays Harbor the Wynoochee has had Summerrun Steelhead plants for many years. In the Chehalis Basin we do not have a natural run of Summerrun Steelhead so no genetic conflicts. Additionally it is a many generation hatchery fish that does not reproduce naturally with much success. ( seldom is a unclipped Summerrun caught in the Wynoochee ) Winter run Steelhead are primarily mitigation production for the Wynoochee and Skookumchuck dams. The Wynoochee production is not a native fish but rather a cross between early imported stock and early native Wynoochee which is called Van Winkle. Skookumchuck is of native origin but to what extent it is still genetically the same as wild fish I do not know but returning adults are captured at the dam.

At present WDFW Chehalis Basin Coho production is around 1,000,000 smolt a year. If that was Summerrun Steelhead the economic benefit would massively exceed any benefit from Coho production. It would end the non treaty impacts on Winter run Steelhead to be sure but it is hard to grasp what the spring and summer fisheries would be like but awesome comes to mind. I can not remember what I was reading but the Wynoochee Summerrun program has the highest cost / benefit ratio of any of our hatchery programs. It is a moneymaker.

Probably not applicable to this discussion but.............

The summer fishery in the Nooch in the late 70's and early 80's was off the charts excellent.

I believe they stopped stocking the upper green (King county) partially because the summer runs are not native. So, even that qualification doesn't appear to pan out well.

Agree.

I would never suggest planting hatchery summer run where there was a documented wild summer run population.



I agree with that...what many people DON'T KNOW, is that those summer steelhead were funded, food wise, by private individuals by collecting donations in and around Grays Harbor. Tom Pennt, Jerry Pavetich and other were the driving force to get those summer steelhead in the Wynoochee. WDFW did take over the program in 1980 or 81. It was one hell of a fishery for people that fished it in the early years.....I'd fish it early hours and many times not see another fisherperson...oh, for the good old days !!!!!

Well guys I think it is appropriate to post this. This is a comment made in an e mail by Bob. He ran Aberdeen Lake Hatchery was the driving force at getting the Summerrun program up and running.

You are right on with your comments. I have Parkinson's disease and now use a wheelchair. With the new regs for steelhead I will not be able to fish. I am 76 years old and put out to pasture with this new reg. I have fished my whole life. For 30 years I worked for the WDFW (starting with the Game Department) providing and improving the fisheries resources for the public. Now all of this is being stripped from the public. As a person with a physically limiting disease, the changes are more devastating. Where will it stop?

Bob Paulsen

I sent my comments to the Director and Commission.

Good Morning Director & Commission,

The E mail below is cut and paste of a conversation of between Mr. Osborn and Bob Paulsen ( in red ) the former head WDFW Hatcheries Division. Frankly sir I think your staff did not take into full consideration of their actions on disabled fishers or the legal requirements law has about handicap access. I would urge to immediately review your decision on limiting fishing from boats. A fisher could use something to identify themselves as disabled as is used in other things. In my mind sir the complete banning of fishers from a boat effects the handicapped disproportionately .

Dave

Actions have consequences, and WDFW isn't thinking (they do?) very clearly.

On a note about Bob P and Parkinson's, one of the "connections" I have read of is between rotenone and Parkinson's. I know now, at least before parole, that staff wore space suits when spreading the stuff. When I started, PPE was a paper mask while you unloaded the semi and nothing when applying. Couple that with all the waters that used to be done and.....

I feel for Bob and thank him for his service.
It used to be awesome fishing.

Since then WDFW has sold out and managed with a knee jerk motivated by the highest bidder.

I feel for Bob, too... But I understand why WDFW can't afford to make exceptions in this particular case. They simply don't have the personnel to patrol all the rivers and check boat anglers to make sure they qualify for an exception, and you can bet plenty of non-qualifying people will take advantage of that circumstance and count on the high likelihood they'll never get caught.

This is not a knock on WDFW; they ARE underfunded and can oly do so much with the money they have. Especially considering the catastrophic circumstances our state and local governments are about to suffer due to COVID-19, it's absurd for anyone to expect them to "find" budget to pay for enforcement of a rule that applies to an EXTREMELY small contingent of the angler user group. If the rule is "No fishing from a floating device," nobody fishing from a boat has a legitimate reason to be doing so, and that's the most realistic enforcement scenario possible.

The spirit of the rule intends to reduce encounters with endangered or threatened fish. I absolutely think we should do everything we can to make sure disabled persons have access to any reasonable opportunity, but in this case, NOBODY should have any opportunity to fish over the fish we're trying to protect in those lies that are supposed to be sanctuaries. Lest we forget, there ARE accommodations in place for anglers who are disabled and can't afford boats to fish from or guides; some in some pretty choice spots. I don't think this screws over the few disabled anglers much more (if any more) than it does the many non-disabled recreational boat users. Seems fair enough to me, IF the goal is to protect fish, as opposed to individuals' ability to catch them.

You make some good points but... The enforcement chore wouldn't be much different. Those people that would take advantage are still going to take advantage while drifting through those holes they don't think enforcement will have easy access to monitor. Cheaters gonna cheat.