50% treaty share. 50% NON-treaty share.

The 8% is allocated to the Chehalis tribe for a third of the salmon production above Oakville.

FYI they are NOT a treaty tribe. Their allocation comes out of the NON-treaty half.

Hi I am a bit new here. I was just wanting to share my book with everyone. It is FREE on Amazon right now and it is about How to Smoke Salmon. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00H7JHQGI. I also made the movie Smokin' Fish that is on PBS right now. Please enjoy and let me know if there is somewhere else I should post this. Thanks. Cory Mann

Steve Thiesfeld is the new Region 6 Fish Program manager. He starts on January 1. He was the Puget Sound Salmon manager.

Welcome to the fray, Steve!

mmmmmmm, Steve Thiesfeld.......interesting move on WDFW's part.....I didn't like the options,of personnel, within R6. Guess we'll see which way the wind blows.....very soon.

Anyone know Steve and how he did in his other positions?

Good guy….

I have liked Steve in the small part of NOF that I have been a part of.

Steve could be a good fit.

Now, who is his replacement in PS.

Phone calls to the Dept. without answers to the question.

That's because there isn't one. The agency hasn't even announced the job opening.

Well here is Steve's background courtesy Steve.

Finally, I know folks are curious about my background, so here’s some information that might be helpful:
I grew up in Yakima and spent all of my formative years there. I have Bachelor’s and Master’s in Fisheries from the University of Washington and proudly wear a lot of purple! . My first job was in central Oregon for ODFW where I worked for 10 years. I was the assistant district fish biologist in Prineville and then conducted research on kokanee in Lake Billy Chinook. I came back to Washington in 1999 as an Area Habitat Biologist in Port Orchard processing HPAs for marine projects. I then transferred to the fish program and conducted research on bull trout in the White Salmon and Klickitat river basins. In 2002, I waded into the world of salmon management as the Puget Sound Recreational Salmon Fishery Manager. In 2008, commercial management was added to my duties as the Puget Sound Salmon Manager. In addition to managing the Puget Sound commercial and recreational fisheries, I also administer the Puget Sound Recreational Fisheries Enhancement Fund that provides funding for a number of hatchery programs; and I’ve served as both the state technical representative and alternate panel member on the Fraser River Panel. I am an avid outdoorsman and spend most of my free time fishing for steelhead, salmon and halibut; or hunting deer and elk.

I wish you and your families a healthy and happy New Year!

There ya go!

OMFG! A fish manager with boots-on-the-ground / rod-on-the-water passion for ….. drum roll please…….

FISH!

Happy New Year, Grays Harbor!

Welcome aboard, Steve!

Took the words right out of my mouth.

A manager who actually fishes. A lot.

Certainly a step in the right direction.

Hard to fathom losing Thiesfeld and Patillo in one fell swoop.

WOW…. that's a gaping canyon of a hole to fill in PS.

I've known and worked with Steve for a number of years on the PSRFEOC. We will miss him there, but I think he'll do well in Region 6.

We will most likely miss him in Puget Sound but he has set the agenda well for his replacement, so we at least have a good starting point for his replacement. He will be good for grays harbor.

+1

His first order of business seems to be contacting each of us WDFW advisors in the area & wanting a personal meeting with each to get to know us & where/how we fish the area.

I told him to bring a large notebook as I have a wish list & a gripe list, his comment was "fine, we can get to that later, I but the first order of business is to get to know you all first".

As Dave said, I have known him for years through the NOF process of Puget Sound. Your first impression of him is just a country boy, don't let that fool you. I believe at least he will not lie to us.

And yes he fishes.

Bit of C&P here but I thought this legal opinion from the AG interesting. I high lighted a couple of key things but look the the legal definition of HOW the WDF&W managed sport fisheries at that time and not much has changed.

1970
Honorable Duane L. Berentson
State Representative, 40th District
P. O. Box 426
Burlington, Washington 98233
Cite as: AGO 1970 No. 15
Dear Sir:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office on a question which
we paraphrase as follows:
May the director of fisheries lawfully close a given area to commercial fishing without also closing it to
sports fishing?
We answer your question in the affirmative subject to the qualification set forth in our analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The regulatory powers of the director of fisheries are set forth in RCW 75.08.080, as follows:
"The director shall investigate the habits, supply and economic use of, and classify, the food fish and
shellfish in the waters of the state and the offshore waters, and [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] from time to time, make,
adopt, amend, and promulgate rules and regulations as follows:
"(1) Specifying the times when the taking of any or all the various classes of food fish and shellfish is
lawful or prohibited.
"(2) Specifying and defining the areas, places and waters in which the taking and possession of the
various classes of food fish and shellfish is lawful or prohibited.
"(3) Specifying and defining the types and sizes of gear, appliances, or other means that may be lawfully
used in taking the various classes of food fish and shellfish, and specifying the times, places, and manner in
which it shall be lawful to possess or use the same.
"(4) Regulating the possession, disposal, and sale of food fish and shellfish within the state, whether
acquired within or without the state, and specifying the times when the possession, disposal, or sale of the
various species of food fish or shellfish is prohibited.
"(5) Regulating the prevention and suppression of all infectious, contagious, dangerous, and
communicable diseases and pests affecting food fish and shellfish.
"(6) The fixing of the size, sex, numbers, and amounts of the various classes of food fish and shellfish
that may be taken, possessed, sold, or disposed of.
"(7) Regulating the landing of the various classes of food fish and shellfish or parts thereof within the
state.
"(8) Regulating the destruction of predatory seals and sea lions and other predators destructive of food
fish or shellfish, and specifying the proof of the destruction of the same that shall be required.
[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]
"(9) Specifying the statistical and biological reports that shall be required from licensed or nonlicensed
fishermen, dealers, boathouses, handlers, or processors of food fish and shellfish.
"(10) Specifying which species of marine and freshwater life are food fish and shellfish.
"(11) Classifying the species of food fish and shellfish or parts thereof that may be used for purposes
other than human consumption.
"(12) Promulgating such other rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this title and the purposes and duties of the department.
"Subdivisions (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7), shall not apply to licensed oyster farms or oysters produced
thereon."
By its enactment of subsections (1)-(4), (6), (9) and (12) of this statute, the legislature has clearly
granted to the director the authority, in regulating the taking of food fish and shellfish, to specify seasons, areas,
gear, maximum catch and possession limits and allowable sales and disposition of catch, and to require certain
statistical reports for various segments of the state fishery. However, sound management of the total fishery
resource has necessitated the enactment of different regulations for sports fishing (angling) than for commercial
fishing.
Basically, the sports fisheries are managed so as to allow large numbers of fishermen each to take a
limited number of fish. Lawful gear for angling is defined in RCW 75.04.100 as one pole, held in hand, to
which not more than two single hooks may be attached. Under WAC 220-56-063 and 220-56-066, most rivers,
streams and ocean areas are open to angling. Spawning areas and areas below dams and racks are closed to
angling, and other areas can and have been closed when such closures were necessary for proper
escapement. Possession and bag limits for angling vary for different areas. For the coastal fishery the limit is
three salmon of not less than 20 inches in length, as provided for in WAC 220-56-013. No license is required
for angling, but [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] sports catches must be recorded upon salmon punch cards which are
returned to the department of fisheries. See, WAC 220-56-023. Fish taken by angling are for personal use only
and may not be sold commercially.On the other hand, the commercial fisheries are managed to allow for proper escapement and maximum
commercial take. The legislature has established license requirements for all segments of the commercial
fishery, and has defined lawful gear under the various licenses. See, chapter 75.28 RCW. Areas open to
commercial fishing are set by statute (chapter 75.18 RCW) and permanent regulations (WAC 220-47-010
through 220-47-070) promulgated thereunder. Data for the commercial fisheries is collected continuously by
the department of fisheries, and additional closures and regulations are frequently made by emergency
regulation to preserve necessary escapement as mandated by fishery data and recommendations of the
international salmon fishery commission.
The Washington supreme court has consistently upheld the authority of the director of fisheries to
prohibit the use of certain specified gear in a given area while leaving the same area open for the use of other
gear. Thus, inBarker v. State Fish Commission, 88 Wash. 73, 152 Pac. 537 (1915), the court upheld a
regulation which effectively closed Puget Sound to gill net fishing while leaving the Sound open to purse seine
net fishing. And inVail v. Seaborg, 120 Wash. 126, 207 Pac. 15 (1922), the court upheld a regulation which
closed Puget Sound to commercial gear while leaving it open to hook and line fishing. Subsequently,
inMcMillan v. Sims, 132 Wash. 265, 231 Pac. 943 (1925), the court upheld a regulation closing Skagit Bay to
commercial fishing while allowing the area to remain open to hook and line fishing.
The court has specifically rejected the contention that opening specified areas only to certain gear or
types of fishing violates the equal protection and the privilege and immunity clauses of the federal and state
Constitutions, respectively.1/ See,State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403, 125 Pac. 168 (1912); Barker v. State Fish
Commission, supra; and Frach v. Schoettler, 46 Wn.2d 281, 280 P.2d 1038 (1955). In theBarker case, in
denying the allegations that a [[Orig. Op. Page 5]] prohibition against gill nets was discriminatory, the court
stated at pp. 76-77:
"It seems plain to us that this is not a discrimination between, or a classification of, persons; but only a
discrimination as to appliances which may be used; and that as to each class of such appliances, every person
may use them under exactly the same conditions and restrictions. There is no suggestion in the law that gill
nets may not be used as the law prescribes by all persons, or that purse and drag seines may not be used as the
law prescribes by all persons. There is plainly no discrimination touching any characteristic or quality attaching
to the person of appellants or any other person.
"It has become the settled law of this state, in harmony with the rule prevailing in other states, that the
classification of territory in game and fish laws preventing hunting or fishing in a portion of the state and
permitting it elsewhere in the state is not a discrimination between, or a classification of, persons in violation of
the state or Federal constitutional guaranties here invoked. Hayes v. Territory, 2 Wash. Terr. 286, 5 Pac. 927;
State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403, 125 Pac. 168, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 469;Cawsey v. Brickey, 82 Wash. 653, 144 Pac.
938. Among the numerous decisions of other states so holding we note: Portland Fish Co. v. Benson, 56 Ore.
147, 108 Pac. 122; Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 92 Wis. 588, 66 N.W. 805, 32 L.R.A. 380.
"Classification of methods of taking fish, making certain methods lawful and other methods unlawful,
has been held not to discriminate between persons in violation of any constitutional right. State v. Lewis, 134
Ind. 250, 33 N.E. 1024, 20 L.R.A. 52; State v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465, 61 N.W. 560, 27 L.R.A. 76."
The conclusion to be drawn from these cases in terms of the question which you have posed, is that the
director of [[Orig. Op. Page 6]] fisheries has the authority to close a given area to commercial fishing without
also closing it to sports fishing where his action is taken for the purposes of conservation, protection and proper
management of the state's fisheries. Furthermore, we should add that we view this conclusion as being fully
consistent with that which was reached in AGO 59-60 No. 127, which you have referred to in your request. In
that 1959 opinion to a previous director of fisheries, we advised that the director could not close an area to
commercial fishing for the sole purpose of establishing an area for sports fishing pointing out there, as we have
here, that the underlying requirement which the director must meet in promulgating regulations is that his
action must be reasonable in terms of his responsibility for the management and conservation of the fishery
resource. The problem, in the case considered in this prior opinion, was that no conservation or management
goals were involved; instead, the proposed closure would have been made to keep commercial boats out of a
given area solely for the purpose of promoting sports fishing in that area, and thus (we concluded) would have
been arbitrary and capricious.
We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
SLADE GORTON
Attorney General
WILLIAM LEMKE
Assistant Attorney General
*** FOOTNOTES ***
1/United States Constitution, Amendment 14 and Washington Constitution, Article I, § 12.

More on the C&P bit but it is the fact that the AG said the NT buy back boats were a no go to use in Washington if sold to a tribal fisher as they are commercial. Kinda interesting how WDF&W staff forget things.

October 8, 1975
Honorable Donald W. Moos
Director, Department of Fisheries
Room 115, General Administration Building
Olympia, Washington
98504 Cite as: AGLO
1975 No. 87
Dear Sir:
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question which
we paraphrase as follows:
If the department of fisheries purchases commercial fishing vessels under chapter
183, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., may the department then sell those vessels to Indians
residing in this state for their use in commercial fishing activities in Washington waters?
We answer this question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.

ANALYSIS
Chapter 183, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., which was passed by the legislature last
June, authorizes the state department of fisheries to purchase commercial fishing vessels and
appurtenant gear from the private owners thereof under certain specified
circumstances. See, § 4, which reads, in full, as follows:
"The department is authorized to purchase commercial fishing vessels and
appurtenant gear, and the appropriate current commercial fishing licenses and delivery
permits issued by the state of Washington if the vessel, licensee or permit holder:
"(1) Was licensed to fish or deliver fish during 1974 within the case area; and
"(2) Was substantially restricted in its fishing season in 1974 by the department as a
result of compliance with United States of America et al v. State of Washington et al., Civil
No. 9213, United States District Court for Western District of Washington,
February [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] 12, 1974.
"The department shall not purchase any vessel without also purchasing all
appropriate current Washington commercial fishing licenses and delivery permits issued to
such vessel or its owner: PROVIDED, That the department is authorized to purchase
current licenses and delivery permits in the absence of the purchase of a vessel."
The underlying basis for such purchases of commercial fishing vessels and gear is
spelled out in § 2 of the act as follows:
"The legislature finds that the protection, welfare, and economic well-being of the
commercial fishing industry is important to the people of this state. There presently exists
an overabundance of commercial fishing gear in our state waters which causes great
pressure on the fishing resources. This results in great economic waste to the state and
prohibits conservation and harvesting programs from achieving their goals. This adverse
sitation has been compounded by the recent federal court decision, United States of America
et al. v. State of Washington et al., Civil No. 9213, United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, February 12, 1974. As a result, large numbers of
commercial fishermen face personal economic hardship and the state commercial fishing
industry is confronted with economic difficulty. The public welfare requires that the state
have the authority to purchase commercial fishing vessels, licenses, gear, and permits
offered for sale, as appropriate, in a manner which will provide relief to the individual vessel
owner,and which will effect a reduction in the amount of commercial fishing gear in use in
the state so as to insure increased economic opportunity for those persons in the industry and
to insure that sound scientific conservation and harvesting programs can be carried out. It is
the intention of the legislature to provide relief to commercial fishermen adversely affected
by the current economic situation in the state fishery and to preserve this valuable state
industry and these natural resources." (Emphasis supplied.)
[[Orig. Op. Page 3]] Consistent with this declaration of policy to remove surplus
commercial fishing vessels and gear from use for that purpose, § 6 of the act, upon which
our answer to your question depends, then provides that:
"The department may arrange for the insurance and storage and for the resale or
other disposition of all vessels and gear purchased pursuant to this 1975 amendatory
act. Such vessels shall not be used by any owner or operator as a fishing vessel other than as
a vessel used for angling or other personal use in waters within the state of Washington, nor
shall such vessels be used by any owner or operator to deliver fish within the boundaries of
the state of Washington. The department shall require that the purchasers or other users of
vessels resold or otherwise disposed of by the department execute any and all suitable
instruments to insure compliance with the requirements of this section. The director may
commence suit or be sued on any such instrument in any state court of record or United
States district court having jurisdiction."
This section of the act, as you will readily note, expressly permits the department,
among other things, to ". . . arrange for the . . . resale . . . of all vessels and gear purchased
pursuant to . . ." the act. Any vessels so disposed of by the department, however, can only
be legally used by the purchasers thereof, within the waters of the state of Washington, for
". . . angling or other personal use. . ."; conversely, the vessels ". . . shall not be used by an
owner or operator as a fishing vessel . . . " other than in the foregoing manner.
Section 7 of the act then adds sanctions to this prohibition by providing for criminal
penalties as follows:
"Any person violating any of the provisions of this 1975 amendatory act, or of any of
the rules or regulations of the director made pursuant thereto, or who aids or abets or assists
in the violation thereof, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and upon a conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than thirty days or more than one
year, or by a fine of not [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] less than twenty-five dollars or more than one
thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction of any person of a violation of any provision of
this 1975 amendatory act, or rule or regulation of the director, the judge or justice of the
peace may, in addition to the penalty imposed by law, provide for the forfeiture of the vessel
and licenses and/or permits to the state of Washington."
Based upon the foregoing, it will be seen that while the department of fisheries may
sell any of the vessels in question to Indians residing in this state, they will be subject to the
same restrictions as apply to any other purchasers and thus will be barred from using the
vessels for fishing in any other manner than by what is referred to in § 6, supra, as
angling. In effect, all purchasers, be they Indian or non-Indian, will be barred from using
the vessels in Washington waters for the basic purchase for which they are designed - i.e.,
commercial fishing with normal commercial fishing gear. Thus, we answer your question,
as paraphrased, in the negative.
We trust that the foregoing will be of some assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
SLADE GORTON
Attorney General
EDWARD B. MACKIE
Deputy Attorney General
OFFICES AND OFFICERS - STATE - DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES - AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF
FISHERIES TO CLOSE AN AREA TO COMMERCIAL FISHING WITHOUT ALSO CLOSING TO
SPORTS FISHING
The director of fisheries may lawfully close a given area to commercial fishing without also closing it to sports
fishing where his action is taken for the purposes of conservation and for the protection and proper management
of the state's fisheries.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1970