Just came out.....

Fishing Rule Change
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Sept. 3, 2014

Change to boundary in North River closure area in Willapa Bay

Action: Closed to recreational fishing in waters north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then, northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46°43.19'N, 123°50.83'W are closed.

Location: Willapa Bay Marine Area 2-1.

Effective dates: Immediately, through Sept. 20, 2014.

Species affected: Salmon.

Daily limits: Daily limit six fish, of which no more than three may be adult salmon. Release wild chinook.

Reason for action: The Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet had been published prior to rules being adopted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Other information: Anglers should refer to the Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet for other ongoing fishing opportunities.

Information Contacts: Mike Scharpf (360) 249-1205, Mike.scharpf@dfw.wa.gov or Steve Thiesfeld (360) 249-1201, Steve.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov .

ok now im wondering whats going to change in the Chehalis basin?

They also corrected the retain Chum error in the pamphlet ( you can keep them ) and took the nets from retain all to tangle net. The landings thus far indicate that the NT Nets went way into the natural escapement.

On GH something will give to be sure as the seasons put forth so far violate the GHMP. After that no one knows outside WDF&W what the guys & gals in blue are going to do.

A agency maintenance worker is attempting to seek funding to redo the South Monte boat launch. Brando Troyer is the gentleman's name and he could use some support. He e mailed me his project description and the plans so if anyone is interested in supporting his effort PM me and I will forward the information. It is a worthy effort.

The E mail below is notification of a " research " fishery in Willapa along with the attachment which is the flyer for commercials. Do I see anything wrong with it? Not really except for this itty bitty thing. This was the same thing Ron Warren & Kirt Hughes did a bit back in 2T with five or so boats and then wella next year the entire commercial fleet was put in to 2T. So take it with a grain of salt as not being honest is a long standing tradition with WDF&W staff. Oh yes almost forgot. WDF&W staff DO NOT regard the withholding of information that would lead one to the correct impression rather than the one they would like you to have as being dishonest so your choice here. From my seat I think Steve is being forthright but remember he is only a phone call or e mail from a superior and wella everything put out is BS. So I will run with it but with this disclaimer. What is written below IS NOT the whole story and let us wait and see how long it takes for them to put out the whole story.



The Department of Fish and Wildlife has been interested in advancing the use of alternative, selective commercial fishery gear throughout the state. During this year’s North of Falcon meetings, we received 2 requests for the ability to fish with traps in Willapa Bay. Under current state law, the agency cannot issue permits for traps except under an “experimental” or “emerging” fishery. There is a fair bit of work to implement these types of fisheries and I have been unable to complete that work this summer.

However, we still have an opportunity to gather some useful information from this year. One piece of information that would be helpful to collect for moving forward with selective gear, is the wild to hatchery ratio and stock composition in the area with the highest production of hatchery Chinook, the Nemah River. To that end, the Department is seeking to collect that data from Chinook around the mouth of the Nemah River. This research project is certainly a small step towards understanding how alternative gear could fish in Willapa Bay. But it is a positive step.

The Department will be seeking interest from commercial fishers to collect Chinook in the area east of a line from Needle Point to Ramsey Point, very near the mouth of the Nemah River. We will be conducting this project on Friday, September 12th from 5 am to 5 pm. The project will be conducted by one boat only. That boat will utilize small mesh gill net gear to collect Chinook. All unmarked Chinook will be placed in a recovery box and released. The project will cease if 20 unmarked Chinook are captured (and released). A WDFW employee will be on board as an observer.

We are seeking interest from commercial fishers and will randomly select one fisher from qualified fishers that express interest. Please see the attached document for more details. Interested fishers should contact myself or Ron Warren ((360) 902-2799) by noon on Thursday, September 11.

I realize that this is very short notice and that most of the commercial fleet is on the water as I type this. I apologize for the rush. Feel free to share among the interested parties. I look forward to folks support as we move forward and make at least a small step towards selective gears. We did have an opportunity to discuss this proposal with the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisors and received the support of those that were part of the discussion.

Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

Steve Thiesfeld



AND THE FLYER:

Nemah Research Project

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking a commercial gillnet fisher to take part in a research project for salmon at the mouth of the Nemah River in a limited portion of Willapa Bay.

Due to the number of fish returning to the Nemah River, the department can conduct this research project in waters that historically have been closed to fishing.

WDFW is using this opportunity to better understand the salmon stock composition for the area east of a line from Needle Point to Ramsey Point. A portion of this area has been closed to commercial fishing for an extended period.

A WDFW observer, who will accompany the commercial fisher, will note whether each fish caught is a hatchery or wild salmon, take scale samples to determine age, and collect coded wire tags.

Commercial fishers will need to use shorter and shallower gill nets suitable for fishing in shallow waters. This may include shallower draft boats.

The research project will be conducted up to 12 hours, 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Friday, September 12 or until a maximum of 20 wild fish are encountered. Interested fishers should contact Ron Warren at ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov with their proposals by September 11, noon 12 p.m., or if fishers have questions you can contact Ron at (360) 902-2799.

Just a couple of thoughts . . .

Are wild coho expected to be in the area in any abundance? I'm guessing not since Willapa has traditionally been managed as a hatchery wipe out fishery with little to no regard to wild salmon.

I think the gillnet boat will have to fish very tight to the mouth of the Nemah, rather than the broader limit of Needle Point to Ramsey Point if they actually intend to avoid wild Naselle chinook. I don't have a WB chart, but chinook would be expected to hug the edge of the thalweg channel which could lie inside the specified fishing boundary line.

Then there is this over-riding thought: WDFW needs to come to terms with a long-term management outlook for WB. Having it both ways - hatchery wipe out and wild stock preservation - is mutually exclusive. Keep with tradition, managing for hatchery stocks and end up with ESA listings, or actually manage for wild stocks, where hatchery fish supplement harvestable numbers, rather than replace wild fish. Pretending they can split the baby and have it survive is delusional.

Sg

Does the public have legal recourse to get a neutral, non-WDFW party on the boat as a co-observer? It's a State-sponsored project....

My (admittedly cynical) prediction is that the outcome of this research will be some undisclosed number (probably relatively small, since the Nemah is basically a hatchery factory) of wild Chinook released, in varying condition, while harvesting several hundred hatchery Chinook and Coho, with a few Chum thrown in for good measure.

The report will likely look something like this:

"Wild Chinook encounters did not reach the 20 allowed in the parameters for the project. The small number of wild Chinook encountered were released in vigorous condition. The small wild encounter rate suggests that the Chinook migrating through this area are almost entirely of hatchery origin. It stands to reason that the surrounding areas of Area 2T will have similar compositions. These findings indicate that an immediate, emergency gillnet opener in Area 2T, for the remainder of September, would be a prudent measure to remove hatchery fish from the system before they have an opportunity to spawn with the apparently depressed wild stocks."

I guess my point is that this "research" has already been conducted, or at least that the outcome is fairly predictable. Almost as predictable as WDFW finding creative, new ways to maximize opportunity for the commercial sector....

As regards Theisfield, my assessment has been that he's much more engaging and forthright than his recent predecessors have been, but as Rivrguy gently suggests, I've long suspected that the decisions being announced by District 17 staff have been and continue to be made by a higher authority. Initially, I singled out the Director, but the more I see of the relationship between the WDFW Commission and the outgoing Director, the more I tend to think they're all put there to create an impression that there is a public influence on the process. The reality seems to be something other than that. As usual, following the money (campaign contributions; not revenues) will probably reveal who's really in charge.

Pretty certain you could manage WB completely for wild chinook stocks and still end up with ESA listing. I think there probably just isn't enough real chinook spawning habitat flowing into WB, nor likely any real wild chinook remaining if there ever where many.

Norther river & smith creek as a genetically independent chinook stream, please . . .

Now managing it for a wild coho would be a completely viable and exciting prospect if anyone actually cared about wild coho.

I find it fascinating that WDFW makes it a priority to do research projects like this, but can't be bothered to do stock surveys to give us the mark rate on caracasses in the naselle or north, let alone genetic testing to characterize what their "wild" stock might be.

BTW, I too endorse Thiesfeld overall. Transparency is day compared to his predecessor's night. Not so fond of the management of WB overall or the WB NOF process, but agree it's not likely Thiesfeld's call.

mmmmmmm, not saying I have concerns about WDFW observers but why not use a "GoPro", with an WDFW observer to do a video????? For a investment of about $500.00, it would sure show how fish were handled.....would help eliminate many of ideas about how fish are handled and do the recovery boxes do what they are supposed to do.

How about it WDFW and Gillnetters????????.....if everything is above board, jump into this new technology, let the general public see what goes on, during a day of netting.

I nominate Salmo

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
September 10, 2014
Contact: Steve Thiesfeld, (360) 249-1201
WDFW seeks nominations to new
Willapa Bay salmon advisory group
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking nominations through Sept. 22 for membership on a new ad hoc advisory group that will assist in developing a draft policy for managing salmon in Willapa Bay.
Up to five qualified individuals will be chosen to serve on the new policy group, which will also include the current members of the existing Willapa Bay salmon management advisory group.
The new salmon policy advisory group will meet three times a month for the next five months to develop recommendations that support conservation objectives and improve sustainable salmon fishing opportunities in Willapa Bay.
Specific issues addressed in the policy will include management objectives for salmon stocks, fishing season structures, and sharing of fishing opportunities between the recreational and commercial fleets.
"We'd like to establish a group of new and current advisors to make sure we have a broad range of expertise and experience as we develop this policy," said Jim Scott, assistant director of WDFW's Fish Program. "This is an important step forward in our effort to further refine the management of fisheries and hatcheries to help ensure we meet conservation objectives for wild salmon populations."
Nominees for the policy advisory group do not have to be affiliated with an organized group. Nominations must be submitted in writing with the following information:
• Nominee's name, address, telephone number and email address.
• Relevant experience and reasons for wanting to serve as a member of the advisory group.
• Nominee's effectiveness in communication.
• Name and contact information for any individual or organization submitting a nomination.
Nominations must be received by Sept. 22. Nominations may be submitted to Cathy Davidson by mail: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA, 98501; or email at Cathy.Davidson@dfw.wa.gov . For more information, contact Steve Thiesfeld at (360) 249-1201.

Geoduck,

I have little WB knowledge, but I agree that the basin is no haven for chinook. The Naselle may have some habitat intact enough to propagate a self-sustaining chinook population, but I am uncertain. And North R and Smith Ck as distinct chinook stocks doesn't pass the straight face or chuckle tests.

The more I ponder it, the more I think WDFW, the state, and sport fishermen would be better off if both WB and GH were managed for wild coho only with no hatchery coho supplementation. Coho are very resilient, and as the forests grow back and are managed under the new forest regulations, I think wild coho management would provide a higher return on investment than with hatchery coho in the mix. Hatchery coho just provide a convenient excuse for continued over-harvest of wild salmon. I guess the same can be said for GH hatchery chinook too.

I nominate Drifter to review the test fishery video.

Sg

Willapa has few Coho issues it is Chinook & Chum. As to North River Chinook it is the last native stock and Smith Cr got blasted environmentally in the 80's so that is a weak link. But North River? Head to SASSI or former staff and it is a viable stock.

The 9th Circuit Appeals Court just came down with a decision that involved WDF&W Enforcement staff. The decision is a shocker to read in particular the conduct of the officers. It is 27 pages long so a full C&P is out but I will try to grab a couple of pages. If you want the document please simply PM me. So here goes .......


FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-35837
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05197- BHS


OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding


2 TARABOCIDA V. ADKINS
Argued and Submitted
April 7, 2014-Seattle, Washington Filed September 9, 2014
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hawkins



SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's summary judgment and remanded in an action brought by four commercial fishers who alleged that officers from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife illegally stopped and searched their automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassed them throughout the years because of a personal vendetta.

The panel held that it was clearly established on the date of the automobile stop that plaintiffs had a Fourth Amendment right not to be stopped by Fish and Wildlife officers while driving on a highway absent reasonable suspicion they had engaged or were about to engage in unlawful activity. The panel held that the stop, which lacked any basis in suspicion of unlawful behavior or statutory

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

TARABOCIBA V. ADKINS

3.authority that would render it permissible under the administrative search exception, violated plaintiffs' clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The panel therefore held that officers Michael Cenci and Dan Chadwick were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim.

The panel affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim on the grounds that the district court correctly deemed this claim untimely.


AND:


TARABOCHIA V. ADKINS 5
Taking the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Grave/et-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013), from 2000 until the date of the stop at issue, Captain Cenci and other WDFW officers have, among other things: followed the Tarabochias in their automobile on multiple occasions; detained Joseph and Matthew, including Joseph on one occasion for an hour and a half only to let him leave without citation; confronted the Tarabochias aboard their fishing vessel with a knife in hand and accompanied by at least six other WDFW officers; intentionally swerved into their automobile while both cars were driving on a public road; followed Alex and Bryan to school on an almost daily basis; verbally threatened to "get" Joseph and Alex on unspecified charges; and charged the Tarabochias with at least twenty-seven "criminal counts, in at least [eleven] court cases, in four [different]jurisdictions," many of which charges were dismissed prior to trial, none resulting in conviction. After a March 2006 incident, which resulted in charges that were later dropped, WDFW officers started spreading unfounded rumors that Joseph posed a risk to officer safety.

Given this history, the Tarabochias became fearful of WDFW officers, and in 2006 Joseph requested a meeting with the local prosecutor and the director of the WDFW to address the family's concerns. According to the prosecutor, when Captain Cenci and another WDFW officer arrived at the meeting, Cenci immediately tried to frisk Joseph despite what the prosecutor considered a lack of any evidence that he posed a threat. Finding Cenci 's behavior "outrageous," the prosecutor prevented Cenci from carrying out the frisk, and the officers left the meeting.

On the morning of March 23, 2007, the Tarabochias were driving in their pickup truck, which was loaded with a tote containing recently caught salmon, along a state highway and a public road when WDFW Sergeant Dan Chadwick and Captain Cenci stopped them.3 Approximately a half an hour beforehand, Captain Cenci had observed the Tarabochias from afar while he conducted a field inspection in an area of the lower Columbia River where commercial fishers regularly tie up their boats and unload recently caught fish. A portion of this area is near the Tarabochias' home.

Sometime that morning, a newspaper reporter accompanying Captain Cenci as a ride along passenger notified Cenci that he had observed the Tarabochias load salmon into the tote on the back of their pickup truck. Cenci called Sergeant Chadwick, who was also in the general area and relayed this information. Although the officers suspected the Tarabochias had salmon on their truck, it is undisputed that they had no reason to believe these salmon had been taken in violation of applicable fish and game laws.

The officers decided not to inspect the fish at the dock, but instead decided to pull the Tarabochias' truck over once on the highway' to check for compliance with fish and game laws. All four Tarabochias left the area of the field inspection in their pickup truck loaded with the tote of salmon. Sergeant

3 The facts indicate that the WDFW officers began to follow the Tarabochias on the highway and then followed them onto a public road. Because we find this distinction irrelevant to our constitutional inquiry, we refer to the place of the stop and search as a "highway."

4 The officers assert they did so because of safety concerns based on an earlier encounter Captain Cenci had with Joseph two days beforehand.


TARABOCHTA V. ADKINS 7

Chadwick, who had been parked along a state highway, saw the truck pass by him. At that time, he began to follow the Tarabochias and, after the Tarabochias had exited off the highway onto a public road, he activated his emergency lights to effectuate the stop. The Tarabochias initially failed to stop, but Captain Cenci, who had been following behind Sergeant Chadwick, pulled his automobile in front of the Tarabochias, and caused them to stop. Officers Brett Hopkins and Brad Rhoden soon arrived on the scene to lend assistance.5

The Tarabochias refused to exit the automobile or open the doors until sheriff's deputies arrived because of their past experience with the WDFW officers. Once someone the Tarabochias recognized as a member of the Wahkiakum County Sheriff's Office arrived (about twelve minutes later), the Tarabochias opened the car doors, and the WDFW officers arrested Matthew and Joseph. The officers proceeded to inspect the salmon in the tote, which inspection failed to reveal any fish and game violations.

Joseph and Matthew were booked, cited for, among other things, "avoiding a wildlife field inspection," and released. A Washington state district court for the County of Wahkiakum later dismissed all charges, finding the stop, search, and arrests unlawful since the officers had acted contrary to state law and to the Washington state constitution

5 Because the complaint does not allege and the record does not indicate that Officers Hopkins or Rhoden took part in the decision to stop and search the Tarabochias' automobile or that they participated in the alleged "vendetta," even construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Tarabochias, there is insufficient basis to hold either of them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court is therefore instructed to dismiss the complaint against them with prejudice.

in stopping and searching the Tarabochias' automobile. On appeal, the superior court upheld this decision, although without reaching the constitutional issue, and reaffirmed that at the time Captain Cenci ordered the stop of the Tarabochias' automobile, he did not have "any reason to believe" the Tarabochias' truck contained "evidence of a violation of law or rules[.]"

The Tarabochias filed their pro se federal district court complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2010, alleging that WDFW officers Dan Chadwick, Brett Hopkins, Brad Rhoden, and Mike Cenci violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by stopping and searching their automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassing them throughout the years.6 The district court initially granted summary judgment to the officers on the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment claim, but denied them summary judgment on the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. Relying on a California state court decision, the district court held that qualified immunity precluded the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim since "the law regarding warrantless stops by WDFW officers was not clearly established" at the time of the stop.

In September 2011, the court granted the Defendants' second motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the § 1983 statute of limitations barred the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. This appeal followed.

Lot of pages in-between but here is the conclusion and the last paragraph ( highlighted in red ) is the most damning.


IV. CONCLUSION

We recognize the importance of Washington state's interest in promoting the conservation of its fishery and its ability to closely regulate the commercial fishing industry in a manner to further this interest, including by statutorily authorizing tailored warrantless administrative searches. However, the WDFW officers did not conduct their suspicionless stop and search of the Tarabochias' automobile pursuant to any statutory authority. Such suspicionless automobile searches and seizures of commercial fishers, absent express statutory authorization, subject them to "unfettered governmental intrusion," Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663-the principal evil against which the Fourth Amendment protects.

In light of the foregoing, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Officers Hopkins and Rhoden, and reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Officers Michael Cenci and Dan Chadwick and the related summary judgment dismissal of the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment claim. We remand

14 The Tarabochias' reliance on A.D., 712 F.3d 446, in support of their argument that the March 2007 stop can be analyzed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is misplaced. Unlike in Fontana, 262 F.3d 871, in A.D. we had no occasion to consider the question now before us.

TARABOCHTA V. ADKINS 27
for further proceedings on this claim. Finally, we affirm the dismissal of the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal to Appellants.

Rivrguy:

That read was both excruciating and fascinating at the same time. I can imagine a few ramifications associated with this decision, but I'm curious to know which possibilities in particular are most alarming to you. Are you thinking this could eventually establish a Fourth Amendment basis for making it illegal for enforcement officers to board commercial vessels for regulatory inspections? Perhaps that, once on land, commercial fishers will no longer be subject to searches by enforcement, even where just cause (suspicion) exists?

I'm just finishing my morning coffee, so I need even more help than usual....

Sounds like Cenci should go...reminds me of a letter Rivrguy posted a couple months back that was sent to the commission about more of Cenci's past inappropriate dealings.

I will try to cherry pick some info and post as the opinion is 27 pages long. That said it is the documented harassment of these guys for nearly 14 years ( started in 2000 ) by WDF&W enforcement and the fact the agency dismissed them as wackos and let it go on. I mean the officer actually veered across lanes attempting to run the kid off the road in the agency vehicle ON duty. Then intimidating the kids by following the kids to school. Whatever started the thing it is clear as hell they targeted and threatened these kids with violence.

As I read it the court said WDFW are not be responsible for their employees violating law and made the officers financially responsible for any damages and settlement cost. $$$$$$ If that was me my laundry would be seriously stained when I read the courts opinion.

MORE:
I. BACKGROUND

The facts underlying this case stretch back to the year 2000 and culminate in an automobile stop on March 23, 2007. Appellants Matthew and Alex Tarabochia, 1 along with their brother, Bryan, are the sons of Joseph Tarabochia,2 a longtime commercial fisher. The Tarabochias allege that beginning sometime in 2000, Captain Michael Cenci and other Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ("WDFW") officers began a "personal vendetta" against them. The WDFW officers insist they were engaged in proper law enforcement activities against fishing scofflaws. The district court was able to resolve these facts in the officers' favor. We are not.

1 Due to their failure to list all four original plaintiffs on the Notice of Appeal, Matthew and Alex are the only Appellants in this case. See Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1988) (use of "et al." does not confer jurisdiction over appeal of plaintiff not listed in notice of appeal).

2 We refer to the Tarabochias by their first names throughout this opinion for clarity.

TARABOCHIA V. ADKINS 5
Taking the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Grave/et-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013), from 2000 until the date of the stop at issue, Captain Cenci and other WDFW officers have, among other things: followed the Tarabochias in their automobile on multiple occasions; detained Joseph and Matthew, including Joseph on one occasion for an hour and a half only to let him leave without citation; confronted the Tarabochias aboard their fishing vessel with a knife in hand and accompanied by at least six other WDFW officers; intentionally swerved into their automobile while both cars were driving on a public road; followed Alex and Bryan to school on an almost daily basis; verbally threatened to "get" Joseph and Alex on unspecified charges; and charged the Tarabochias with at least twenty-seven "criminal counts, in at least [eleven] court cases, in four [different]jurisdictions," many of which charges were dismissed prior to trial, none resulting in conviction. After a March 2006 incident, which resulted in charges that were later dropped, WDFW officers started spreading unfounded rumors that Joseph posed a risk to officer safety.

Given this history, the Tarabochias became fearful of WDFW officers, and in 2006 Joseph requested a meeting with the local prosecutor and the director of the WDFW to address the family's concerns. According to the prosecutor, when Captain Cenci and another WDFW officer arrived at the meeting, Cenci immediately tried to frisk Joseph despite what the prosecutor considered a lack of any evidence that he posed a threat. Finding Cenci 's behavior "outrageous," the prosecutor prevented Cenci from carrying out the frisk, and the officers left the meeting.

On the morning of March 23, 2007, the Tarabochias were driving in their pickup truck, which was loaded with a tote containing recently caught salmon, along a state highway and a public road when WDFW Sergeant Dan Chadwick and Captain Cenci stopped them.3 Approximately a half an hour beforehand, Captain Cenci had observed the Tarabochias from afar while he conducted a field inspection in an area of the lower Columbia River where commercial fishers regularly tie up their boats and unload recently caught fish. A portion of this area is near the Tarabochias' home.

Sometime that morning, a newspaper reporter accompanying Captain Cenci as a ride along passenger notified Cenci that he had observed the Tarabochias load salmon into the tote on the back of their pickup truck. Cenci called Sergeant Chadwick, who was also in the general area and relayed this information. Although the officers suspected the Tarabochias had salmon on their truck, it is undisputed that they had no reason to believe these salmon had been taken in violation of applicable fish and game laws.

The officers decided not to inspect the fish at the dock, but instead decided to pull the Tarabochias' truck over once on the highway' to check for compliance with fish and game laws. All four Tarabochias left the area of the field inspection in their pickup truck loaded with the tote of salmon. Sergeant

3 The facts indicate that the WDFW officers began to follow the Tarabochias on the highway and then followed them onto a public road. Because we find this distinction irrelevant to our constitutional inquiry, we refer to the place of the stop and search as a "highway."

4 The officers assert they did so because of safety concerns based on an earlier encounter Captain Cenci had with Joseph two days beforehand.


TARABOCHTA V. ADKINS 7

Chadwick, who had been parked along a state highway, saw the truck pass by him. At that time, he began to follow the Tarabochias and, after the Tarabochias had exited off the highway onto a public road, he activated his emergency lights to effectuate the stop. The Tarabochias initially failed to stop, but Captain Cenci, who had been following behind Sergeant Chadwick, pulled his automobile in front of the Tarabochias, and caused them to stop. Officers Brett Hopkins and Brad Rhoden soon arrived on the scene to lend assistance.5

The Tarabochias refused to exit the automobile or open the doors until sheriff's deputies arrived because of their past experience with the WDFW officers. Once someone the Tarabochias recognized as a member of the Wahkiakum County Sheriff's Office arrived (about twelve minutes later), the Tarabochias opened the car doors, and the WDFW officers arrested Matthew and Joseph. The officers proceeded to inspect the salmon in the tote, which inspection failed to reveal any fish and game violations.

Joseph and Matthew were booked, cited for, among other things, "avoiding a wildlife field inspection," and released. A Washington state district court for the County of Wahkiakum later dismissed all charges, finding the stop, search, and arrests unlawful since the officers had acted contrary to state law and to the Washington state constitution

5 Because the complaint does not allege and the record does not indicate that Officers Hopkins or Rhoden took part in the decision to stop and search the Tarabochias' automobile or that they participated in the alleged "vendetta," even construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Tarabochias, there is insufficient basis to hold either of them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court is therefore instructed to dismiss the complaint against them with prejudice in stopping and searching the Tarabochias' automobile. On appeal, the superior court upheld this decision, although without reaching the constitutional issue, and reaffirmed that at the time Captain Cenci ordered the stop of the Tarabochias' automobile, he did not have "any reason to believe" the Tarabochias' truck contained "evidence of a violation of law or rules[.]"

The Tarabochias filed their pro se federal district court complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2010, alleging that WDFW officers Dan Chadwick, Brett Hopkins, Brad Rhoden, and Mike Cenci violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by stopping and searching their automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassing them throughout the years.6 The district court initially granted summary judgment to the officers on the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment claim, but denied them summary judgment on the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. Relying on a California state court decision, the district court held that qualified immunity precluded the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim since "the law regarding warrantless stops by WDFW officers was not clearly established" at the time of the stop.

In September 2011, the court granted the Defendants' second motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the § 1983 statute of limitations barred the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. This appeal followed.

I would urge all to listen to the audio of the 9/4/14 Commission meeting. Items B & C being the important ones and they are interesting. Budget / prioritization of revenue for fishers / hatchery reductions. ( Naselle & Nemah going down in the budget ) So take the time as it gives you a idea of direction things are headed. For the fun of it if it all happened what is my reaction? Holy sh-- comes to mind.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/audio_sep0414.html

This post and the next will be about the budget ( WDFW ) and direction. Sorry about the formatting but a bit of a bear to bring in formatted but here is a link.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/agenda_sep0414.html


Meeting dates: September 4, 2014 Conference Call

Agenda item:
2015 Proposed Operating Budget Requests - Decision

Presenter(s):
Owen Rowe, Budget Officer, Technology and Financial Management
Background summary:
In September of every even-numbered year, state agencies submit their second supplemental operating budget proposals to make final course corrections to the current biennium and their biennial operating budget proposals with planned spending changes for the next two fiscal years to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the Legislature.

Second supplemental budget proposals are reserved for technical corrections, and emergent issues that arise at the end of a biennium.

Biennial budget proposals are requests for spending adjustments over the next two fiscal years. The 2015-17 biennium begins July 1, 2015, and ends June 30, 2017.

There are two types of budget requests: maintenance level which seek to maintain current service levels, and performance level requests that may represent revised strategies, new work, or differences in program direction.

This year, the OFM has mandated that state agencies submit 15 percent state general fund reduction options as part of the Governor’s budget process. These budget reduction options will be submitted as formal decision packages.
Policy issue(s) you are bringing to the Commission for consideration:
N/A
Public involvement process used and what you learned:
N/A
Action requested:
Commission approval of the Department’s proposed 2015 Supplemental and 2015-2017 Operating Budget Request to ensure timely transmission of the Office of financial Management.

Once approved, the request will be submitted to the Office of Financial Management for consideration and inclusion in the Governor’s Proposed 2015-2017 Biennium Operating Budget.
Draft motion language:
I move to approve the Department’s proposed 2015 Supplemental and 2015-2017 Operating Budget Requests as presented by staff.



Justification for Commission action:
RCW 77.04.055(6), “The commission shall have final approval authority for the Department’s budget proposals.” The Fish and Wildlife Commission sets policy for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and is responsible for approving Department budget request for submittal to the office Financial Management.


Communications Plan:
N/A


Form revised 12/5/12



Title Program ML/PL Fund FY15 $000s FY15 FTE
1 Legal Services Adjustment BSP ML GFS/WLS 300
2 Maintaining Technology Access BSP ML GFS/WLS 400
3 WILD Transaction Fee Tech. Adj. BSP ML 104 WLS 300
4 L&I Rate Technical Adjustment BSP ML Big 4 0
5 Federal Funding Adjustment BSP ML Federal 8,100
6 Hatchery Utilities Fish ML 7 different 92
7 Food for Fish Hatchery Production Fish ML GFS/WLS 267
8 Wildfire Wildlife ML 001-1 GFS 805
10,264 0
Subtotal GFS: 1,286
Subtotal WLS: 801
Subtotal all other: 8,177

3 of 5

$000s FTE
Title Program Fund FY 16 FY 17 FY 16 FY 17 Linked to
Maintenance Level

1 Lease Rate Adjustment & Pt Whitney Correction BSP Big 4 30 30 rev
2 Maintaining Technology Access BSP Big 4 200 200 rev
3 L&I Rate Technical Adjustment BSP Big 4 0 0 rev
4 Federal Funding Adjustment BSP Fed 3,000 3,000
5 Boldt Legal Services BSP GFS 35 33
6 Hatchery Utilities Fish 7 different 47 47 fee incr
7 Food for Fish Hatchery Production Fish GFS/WLS 321 380 fee incr
8 Protect Wild Salmon through Marking Fish GFS/Fed/GF-PL 175 180
9 Enhancing Puget Sound Rec Fishing Fish 04M-PSRFE 114 126
10 PILT and Land Assessments Wildlife GFS 505 535
11 Wildfire Costs Wildlife GFS 305 305

Performance Level Subtotals ML 4,732 4,836 0 0
12 Enhance Recreational License System BSP WLS 1,200 1,200 Trans. Fee
13 Vancouver Relocation Lease CAMP Big 4 129 129
14 Fish & Wildlife Radio-Over-Internet Enforcmt GFS/WLS 74 74
15 Marijuana on State Lands Enforcmt GFS 144 144
16 Recover Puget Snd Steelhead Fish GFS 563 341
17 Tracking Puget Sound Fish Health Fish ELSA 817 709 2.5 2.5
18 Lower Columbia Hatchery Production Fish GFS 154 154
19 PILT Fund Sources Wildlife GFS 514 514
20 Investigate/Manage Elk Hoof Disease Wildlife WLS 125 125 1.0 1.0 Elk Raffle

Legislation-Related Packages with Budget Impact Subtotals PL 3,720 3,390 3.5 3.5
21 Recreational Fishing Fees Fish/Enf WLS 2,093 2,093 7.3 7.3 Rec fee bill
22 Commercial Fishing Fees Fish/Enf GFS/WLS 1,015 1,015 3.7 3.7 Comm fee bill
23 Managing Aquatic Invasive Species Fish 09N, 14G 1,294 1,834 6.0 6.0 AIS bill
24 Commercial Shellfish & Public Safety Enf WLS 615 615 4.0 4.0 Excise tax bill
Subtotals Other Leg Pkgs 5,017 5,557 21.0 21.0
Total of all packages: 13,469 13,783 24.5 24.5
Big 4: GFS: 2,345 2,429 4,775
GFS- General Fund-State WLS: 5,247 5,252 10,500
Fed- General Fund-Federal Other: 5,876 6,101 11,977
GF-PL General Fund Private/Local WLS- State Wildlife Account 27,252


2015-17 Biennial: 15% Reduction Options --FWC Conference Call Sept. 4
BY PROGRAM



Title

Pgm Target *

Proposals
$000s


+ CAMP's Hatch Maint

+ BSP =
portion

Total Bien.
$000s


FTEs ***
1 Reduction of 8 Enforcement Officers ENF ($1,996)
($336) ($2,332) (10.6)
Enforcement Subtotal ($1,996) ($1,996) ($336) ($2,332) (10.6)
2 Reduce HPA Permitting HAB ($2,536)
($427) ($2,963) (17.3)
Habitat Subtotal ($2,487) ($2,536) ($427) ($2,963) (17.3)
3 PILT Reduction WILD ($700) ($700)
Wildlife Subtotal ($700) ($700) ($700) 0.0
4 George Adams Hatchery Reduction Fish ($150)
($25) ($175)
5 Hoodsport Hatchery Reduction Fish ($227) ($38) ($265) (1.3)
6 Close Minter Hatchery Fish ($866) ($17) ($100) ($983) (3.2)
7 Close Nemah Hatchery Fish ($437) ($21) ($74) ($531) (2.3)
8 Close Naselle Hatchery Fish ($678) ($32) ($114) ($824) (3.8)
9 Close Samish Hatchery Fish ($604) ($29) ($102) ($734) (3.2)
10 Puget Sound Commercial Salmon Fishery Fish ($487) ($82) ($569) (5.0)
11 Grays/ Willapa Commercial Salmon Fishery Fish ($248) ($42) ($290) (3.6)
12 Reduce Puget Sound Shellfish Fisheries Fish ($387) ($65) ($452) (2.7)
Fish Subtotal ($4,159) ($4,084) ($98) ($641) ($4,823) (25.1)
Reduce Hatchery Maintenance ** CAMP ($98) ($98)
CAMP Subtotal ($98) ($98) ($98) 0.0
Central Administration ** BSP
($1,404)
($1,404)
BSP Subtotal ($1,454) ($1,404) ($1,404) 0.0

Grand Total
($10,894)
($10,818)
($10,818)
(53.0)
* These are the targets distributed to programs on July 1 & 24; originals with 1st updates.
** CAMP's and BSP's reductions are spread proportionally to the relevant proposals. They will not be stand-alone packages.
*** FTE figures include the program's reduction plus proporational amount of BSP's 15 FTE reduction.

The direction chosen by the Commission is a break from the past so it is nearly mandatory reading.

Commission Budget Policy 2015-17
(Draft revised 09/1/2014)

Reduction in General Funds and Increase in License Fees

The Department’s share of General Funds - State (GF-S) has declined dramatically over the past five years, decreasing from $110 million in 2008 to $61 million in 2014. Once again this year, the Department was directed to prepare and submit a budget with additional GF-S reductions of 15%, or roughly $11 million. The cuts presented in that submission are distributed over the activities that are largely supported with GF-S: enforcement, habitat protection, native fish recovery, and fish management activities associated with commercial fisheries.

Over this same period, the share of Department costs supported with sport fishing license revenues has grown. License fees were increased three years ago and now represent the largest single portion of funding. The Department now faces increased costs of maintaining existing services. In addition, we see the potential of additional cuts in future biennia to allow the state to meet its K-12 educational obligations under the McCleary decision. The Department also faces the prospects of additional reductions in federal funding that support hatchery production and critical fishery sampling and monitoring activities. If it is to maintain and expand opportunity for recreational fishing, the Department must pursue additional fee increases.

Approach for Sport Fishing License Fee Increases

The Commission recognizes the benefits of sport fishing across the state in generating funding for agency activities well beyond fishery management cost. Deposited in the Wildlife Account, user fees support such things as native fish recovery, fish production, and a variety of costs associated with management of the fisheries.
It is the policy of the Department to ensure that recreational license fees are used for the benefit of the sport fishery. To be successful, the Department is committed to working closely with the sport fishing community to define the new fee structure and to identify specifically the use of the new revenue created from the new fees.

The Commission recognizes that increased fees can be counterproductive. Increased fees can lead to declines in sales. To counteract that response, the Department must develop specific proposals that result in increased sport fishing opportunity. The Commission believes that it would be beneficial to look for ways to make practical commitments to expand sport fishing opportunities at the same time that it pursues a course during this Legislative Session that avoids the need for additional license increases in the next two biennia.

Cost Benefit Analysis and Budget Decisions: Salmon Fishery Activities
The Director will provide a report to the Commission that includes all the available information relative to the costs of providing and managing sport and commercial fisheries including enforcement, monitoring, and hatchery production costs. The Director will include in his report a breakdown of the revenue sources that support the activities (GFS, federal, local, DJ). Within existing resources, the Director will also report to the Commission the Department’s best estimates of the economic benefits and license revenues that are derived by the state from each major salmon fishery, e.g. Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River.
It is the policy of the Department that consideration be given to the comparable economic and agency revenue benefits of respective fisheries as various cuts, fee increases, and policy changes are proposed and discussed by budget decision-makers.

Promote Selective Fisheries
The Commission adopted policies that support hatchery and harvest reform and realigned management in a number of specific fisheries to promote more selective harvest practices. The Director will ensure that the Department’s biennial budget submission includes elements that significantly advance selective fisheries and hatchery reform measures.

Equitable Sharing of the Costs of Management
In light of continued reduction of GF-S, the Commission directs the Department to seek means to recoup the costs of hatchery production and management of commercial fisheries from the participants in the commercial fisheries or reduce agency activities in support of these fisheries. The cost of managing and maintaining commercial fisheries has long been funded with general fund revenue. Commercial licenses provide very limited revenues to offset management costs -- roughly 4% of the costs of these fisheries. Unlike sport fishing license revenue, funds from the sale of commercial salmon licenses largely go directly to the state treasury. The sizable reduction in general fund revenue that the Department has experienced over the last two biennia has left it without the financial means to continue providing the existing commercial fisheries the hatchery fish that sustain them. The Director will include in his legislative requests submission a proposal that is designed to raise new revenues from commercial license holders that will help offset the costs of providing commercial salmon fishing opportunities.