Dave,

Letters written to my reps about this nonsense.

Thanks. This one folks needs to do as Rep Lytton is Vice Chair of the Ag & resource Committee which Rep Blake Chairs and if you think the Vice Chair did this without the Chairs knowledge or encouragement ( more likely a request ) I have a bridge I would like to entertain a offer from ya on.

Lord have mercy we also picked up that he is trying to get 400K cut from mass marking ( and loose fed matching funds ) which is about as anal as one can get. Any of you that follow this type of thing let all of us know where the mass marking thing is hiding in the budget.

Well tunnel vision will get not get you anyplace fast! Here is a CCA Alert that has everything in a nice neat run out. I think everyone is a bit tired of all this BS from several of the Coastal Caucus legislators but we have to follow things through to the end or get screwed right along with the fish.


ACTION ALERT
Hi CCA Member,

We are closing in on the end of the legislative session and new threats to our fisheries have emerged. On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee approved a 2015-2017 operating budget that proposes to cut funding for hatchery salmon production. The Committee also accepted an amendment from Representative Kristine Lytton (D-Anacortes) that would undermine the Willapa Bay salmon fishery reform policy recently adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Please take just one minute to CLICK HERE and send your state representatives a pre-drafted email asking that they reverse these bad policies. With a handful of days remaining in the current legislative session we must act now!

The House budget proposal would cut funding for the marking of hatchery salmon by over $400,000. Since state law requires that all hatchery salmon be marked, this will result in a direct cut to hatchery salmon production, including Chinook and Coho. Every previous version of the House and Senate budgets have included this funding, so there's a chance we can save this funding if we act now!

Meanwhile, Representative Lytton succeeded in attaching a last-minute budget policy "rider" to undermine the Willapa Bay salmon management policy adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission on June 13. The rider would maintain the status quo harvest and hatchery policies in the Willapa, which have led to over harvest and under-escapement of wild Chinook. The Commission's policy seeks to improve the conservation of Willapa Bay wild Chinook populations and prioritize recreational salmon fisheries by placing reasonable constraints on non-selective commercial gillnet fisheries. Last year, intensive gillnet fisheries in Willapa Bay exceeded exploitation limits on wild Chinook stocks by nearly 100 percent!

Rep. Lytton's amendment appears to be coordinated with the efforts of Representative Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen) to reverse the Commission policy, including an upcoming "work session" recently scheduled by Blake's Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee for this Thursday.

We can't let our fisheries continue to lose out to these status quo policies championed by a handful of legislators. Please take just a moment to CLICK HERE and send your legislators a pre-drafted email asking for their support (you can personalize the draft email to increase its effectiveness).

Are we going to complain about how our fisheries are being managed or are we going to take action? The time is now.


________________________________________

Well just when you thought it could not get much sillier along comes this e mail from Rep Blake below in blue. Now I realize "spin" is accepted now a days but lord this one is way out. As the email circulated it drew some interesting comments of which one is below.

Comment:

Naturally, he spins it as a pro rec proposal. Forgets to mention that the license fee bill he sponsored increased license fees primarily on the backs of the recs and the increase for commercials was nearly insignificant. This bill did not pass due primarily to the position that any increase on the recs could not be used to further subsidize commercial fishing. As the process for a Willapa plan is wrapping up, he leads a charge on the Governor's office to remove Wecker which is an obvious attempt to discipline the members of the Commission. Then, once the interim Willapa Bay policy was passed, within hours Blake drops a bill to cut the rec license fees going to the Department during a budget crisis in an attempt to force the Commission to back track on the permanent policy which also failed. Then, the permanent policy was passed and he lays out another bill that attempts to deliver on the threat that the commercials raised time and time again during the process that developed the new policy.

I remember the commercial reps stating or implying time after time in the public process that if they didn't get what they wanted (continuation of the over-harvest by the commercial fleet) that their legislative supporters would close hatcheries and rec fishing hampered even further. Blake chooses the Nemah which produces more Chinook for rec harvest than the other hatcheries combined if I remember the numbers correctly. Remarkably, he then tries to portray all these efforts on behalf of the commercial gillnet fleet as somehow being pro-recreational.


Rep Blakes E mail:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: House budget proposal devastates salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection
From: "Blake, Rep. Brian" <Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov>To: "@HDC Members" <HDCMEMBERS@leg.wa.gov>CC: "@HDC LA's" <HDCLEGASSIST@leg.wa.gov>,"@HDC Staff" <HDCSTAFF@leg.wa.gov>
Good morning,

Several colleagues have received emails concerning the House budget proposal devastates salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection. For your information I am providing my email response to constituents below. The constituent email is included at the bottom of this email for your review. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance regarding this issue.

Representative Brian Blake

______________________________________
Constituent Response:

Thank you for your email. I sincerely appreciate your effort in contacting my office and providing your input. Your message expressed concerns regarding the House proposed 2015-17 operating budget and specifically salmon fisheries on the Washington coast.

As you may know, hatcheries in Washington produce more fish than will ever be caught by sport and commercial fishermen. The production of these fish are mainly paid for by general fund tax dollars in the Washington State budget. Each year, an estimated 750,000 fish return to the hatcheries. These extra fish provided by general fund tax dollars are sold at a loss to private corporations to produce cat food and other similar products. A smaller percentage of these fish are donated to food banks. In Pacific County, WDFW operates Forks Creek Hatchery, Nemah Hatchery, Naselle Hatchery and Grays River Hatchery. Combined, all yield thousands of surplus fish each year.

In order to maximize recreational fishing opportunities in the 19th Legislative District, a plan to revise hatchery production at the Naselle Hatchery has been proposed. As you may also know, there are three boat launches that provide recreational fishing access to hatchery stock released from the Naselle Hatchery. There are no public boat launches on the Nemah River that I am aware of. According to the proviso language revising hatchery production, if production at the Naselle hatchery is at capacity, DFW has the authority to produce salmon at the Nemah hatchery.

Regarding the $400,000 cut in the general operating budget, I have supported increasing fees in commercial fishing to stave off these cuts, but have been unsuccessful in getting this legislation through the process. Not only have I proposed legislation to increase fees on commercial fishing, I have also proposed decreasing fees for sports fisherman.

Again, thank you for informing me of your views. I always welcome your contribution as your remarks and those of other constituents help my decision-making.

Sincerely,

Representative Brian Blake
19th Legislative District

_______________________________________________
Constituent email:
Subject: House budget proposal devastates salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection

Dear Representative,

I urge you to oppose two provisions included in the latest version of the proposed 2015-17 operating budget currently working its way through the House. These provisions would harm salmon fisheries across the state and also include an effort to roll back protections for wild salmon on the Washington coast.

The House's latest proposed budget would cut over $400,000 from WDFW's hatchery marking and production activities necessary to maintain current hatchery salmon releases consistent with requirements for wild salmon protection. This reduction will harm recreational salmon fisheries, which are a key part of the $1 billion recreational fishing industry that also represents the largest source of revenue for WDFW through fishing license sales. The previous House and Senate budgets have included this funding and I hope you will work to restore it.

I am very concerned about an amendment recently added to the House budget that seeks to undermine new protections for wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted a new policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries that reduces commercial gillnet harvest rates on wild Chinook and promotes more sustainable fishing methods, including selective recreational fisheries. A policy rider adopted in the committee seeks to reverse these reforms by mandating the location of hatchery salmon production in Willapa Bay, including the Naselle River. I hope you will join me in opposing this policy rider.

I appreciate your efforts to finalize a budget solution for our state and urge you to oppose these two budget proposals.

Sincerely,

I guess we'll know in a couple days (once the budget is finalized and signed) if the rider died….yes?

I think your correct but we have to wait to see and always the question what does the final budget have in it for WDF&W O&M is out and about.

This is what is commonly called a constituent response & it is from Rep Blake. I have received this from three different sources so I am posting up for folks to take a look. This is on the Nemah / Naselle hatchery dust up and a interesting spin. The thing is folks if one thinks that the number two member of a legislative Committee drops a bill that effects the Chairs District ( which the lady did ) WITHOUT the Chair asking or being aware of it I still have the bridge I am trying to sell. Anyhow read away.


Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: House budget proposal harms salmon fisheries and coastal wild
salmon protection


Good afternoon,
Thank you for your message concerning the WDFW budget specifically regarding salmon fisheries on the Washington coast. As you probably already know, the Legislature is now in a Third Special Session while budget negotiators continue to hammer out a budget agreement before a looming government shutdown that is unprecedented in the history of the State of Washington. The sentiment toward reaching an agreement before the clock strikes midnight on Tuesday, June 30th changes moment to moment with every new proposed plan and revised proposal. That’s why I am providing an update regarding hatchery production as your concerns, and the concerns of other constituents in the 19th Legislative District, help in the decision making process.Rather than passively waiting for the budget negotiators to get the job done, I spent Sunday actively advocating on behalf of the 19th Legislative District constituents in Olympia to remove the proviso language requiring the WDFW to move production from the Nemah hatchery to the Naselle hatchery and replace it with direction to WDFW to maintain the production at the Naselle hatchery at two million eight hundred thousand fall Chinook salmon per year.

The result of this revised proviso language would be the production of an additional 2 million Chinook salmon at the Naselle hatchery annually. From the messages I have received from constituents like you, I believe an increase in fish production is what the local fishing constituency of the 19th district would like. In addition to advocating for a Chinook production increase, I was able to advocate to restore the $400,000 proposed cut to the hatchery mass marketing program recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. Thank you for sharing your views and caring about hatchery production in our state. I will keep your views in mind and do the best job I can. Please feel free to contact me in the future. I value your input.

Sincerely,
Representative Brian Blake
19th Legislative District

To: Blake, Rep. Brian
Subject: House budget proposal harms salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection
Dear Representative Blake,
I urge you to oppose two provisions included in the latest version of the proposed 2015-17 operating budget currently working its way through the House. These provisions would harm salmon fisheries across the state and also include an effort to roll back protections for wild salmon on the Washington coast. The House's latest proposed budget would cut over $400,000 from WDFW's hatchery marking and production activities necessary to maintain current hatchery salmon releases consistent with requirements for wild salmon protection. This reduction will harm recreational salmon fisheries, which are a key part of the $1 billion recreational fishing industry that also represents the largest source of revenue for WDFW through fishing license sales. The previous House and Senate budgets have included this funding and I hope you will work to restore it.

I am very concerned about an amendment recently added to the House budget that seeks to undermine new protections for wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted a new policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries that reduces commercial gillnet harvest rates on wild Chinook and promotes more sustainable fishing methods, including selective recreational fisheries. A policy rider adopted in the committee seeks to reverse these reforms by mandating the location of hatchery salmon production in Willapa Bay, including the Naselle River. I hope you will join me in opposing this policy rider.I appreciate your efforts to finalize a budget solution for our state and urge you to oppose these two budget proposals.

Sincerely,

What we have here is a letter to the Senate from Director Unsworth. I am told ( but have not seen ) the House letter is similar. So rather than me beat up my keyboard read and make you own mind up.



Dear Honorable members of the Washington State Senate,

I recognize that as you work on reaching consensus on what has been a very challenging budget process this session you are dealing with many concerns on budget policy. However, I need to share my unease about the following issues in the House and Senate budget proposals in regards to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s operating and capital budgets.

Operating Budget

Transfer of Hatchery Production
A budget amendment adopted during the House Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday directs the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to relocate all salmon production at the Nemah Hatchery to the Naselle Hatchery effectively nullifying recent Fish and Wildlife Commission policy on the Willapa Bay.

Moving salmon production to the Naselle locations will impact a specific salmon population that has been designated with a higher brood stock management standard. The policy in the House budget severely limits our ability to remove hatchery fish off of the spawning grounds. This separation is necessary so that hatchery salmon do not interact with wild stocks. Adding more hatchery fish to the Naselle area complicates (if not makes impossible) our ability to meet this standard and comply with required hatchery reform principles.

If this policy is adopted in the conference budget the state will not be able to meet the scientific standards set by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) and attain hatchery reform goals. I respectfully request that the Legislature refrain from making policy decisions that abrogate Fish and Wildlife Commission Policy on these complex resource management issues.

Mass Marking Funding
WDFW is required by state and federal laws to mark (by removing adipose fins) hatchery raised chinook and coho salmon in order to maintain mark-selective fisheries. WDFW can only release salmon that have been marked. The House proposal that passed the Appropriations Committee on Tuesday reduces the Department's ability to mark hatchery fish and will result in a reduction in hatchery production that will impact salmon fishing opportunity. Please maintain this funding at the level in the Senate budget.

Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)
The Senate operating budget removes $800,000 that is needed to finalize an over ten year planning partnership (a $20 million investment to date) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Completion of the plan is the next step in efforts to leverage nearly $800 million in federal funding to advance Puget Sound recovery. The policy in the Senate budget eliminates the funding needed to finalize the plan (throwing aside the $20 million investment) and will halt all effort to bring nearly $1 billion of federal funding to support Puget Sound restoration projects. Please maintain the funding at the level in the House budget.

Capital Budget

Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP)
WDFW has worked closely with local partners to develop WWRP proposals for acquisition, easement and restoration effort to advance recreational and conservation opportunities. These WDFW projects are all supported within their local communities. While I support the Legislature’s efforts to investigate WWRP reform that addresses current public values, I respectfully request that the current process, projects and funding levels as proposed in the House budget remain intact.

Thank you for your hard work and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jim Unsworth Director
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Looks like neither the mass-marking reduction or the language directed at the Nemah/Naselle made it into the final budget.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/

That's good form for Unsworth.

Blake is lower than pond scum.

I have been told that the Willapa Gillnetters filed in Pacific County court to over turn the just passed Willapa Policy. As I do not have a copy yet I have few details but as soon as I get it or someone else does it will be up. The thing is I can not get my arms around is why not wait for the WAC? Commercial interest have already gotten their collective butts kicked suing a policy before. Oh well forward we go and the article below from the newspaper as some information.


CHINOOK OBSERVER:

Gillnetters begin legal challenge to new Willapa Bay salmon policy
Katie Wilson

Published:

July 2, 2015 4:42PM

Gillnetting group files petition for judicial reveiw of new Willapa Bay salmon management policy

A group of commercial gillnet fishermen filed a petition June 30, seeking judicial review of a new salmon management policy on Willapa Bay.

The Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association (WBGA), represented by attorneys Ryen Godwin and Gregory Jacoby of Tacoma-based McGavick Graves, argues the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife acted outside of statuary authority when it placed restrictions on fishing times, place, manner and fishing method in the policy instead of in a rule.

The attorneys also claim the department acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” way when it used specific models to analyze justify how much harvest of salmon the new policy would allow as well as determine the current economic impacts of both commercial and sport fishermen in Willapa Bay.

“The DFW determined the current economic impact in Willapa Bay based upon a state-wide study published in 2008 of all gear types, all locations, and all species of salmon,” the petition states. That study looks at ex-vessel value for commercial fishermen — the price fishermen receive for fish landed at a dock — and, for sport fishermen, the number of days available for them to fish.

“The state-wide study is not generally accepted as a reliable basis to determine economic impacts on a particular region,” the petition continues, “… There is no rational relationship between the economic impacts identified in the state-wide study and the Policy’s actual economic impacts on Willapa Bay.”

The petition also took issue with the allowed impact rate to naturally spawning Chinook salmon — fish that do not return to the state-run hatcheries and spawn on their own in nearby rivers and streams. Under the policy, gillnetters are allowed 20 percent impacts; once they hit a certain number of these natural or wild Chinook, fishing must cease in that area. In coming years, this allowed impact will be stepped down to 14 percent, which could potentially further restrict commercial harvest on Willapa Bay.

Local fishermen have called that percentage a “nail in the coffin,” and said there would be little reason to continue fishing on Willapa Bay under such an impact rate. In the past, they were allowed anywhere from 30 percent to nearly 40 percent impact, and, the petition says, this impact helped the natural origin fish, keeping spawning ground from becoming overrun.

WDFW, its commission and conservation groups, however, have argued that lowering the impact rate to 20 and then 14 percent is necessary move to restore wild salmon runs there. Fishermen and processors have countered that there are no true wild runs on the Willapa, only hatchery fish that failed to return to the hatcheries and have instead begun to spawn on their own.

“The facts found by the DFW as recently as 2013 show that a (30) percent impact rate ensured the protection of natural origin adults and removed hatchery adults that might otherwise have a negative influence on natural counterparts,” the petition argues, and later states, “there is no conservation benefit to reducing the impact rate from (20) percent and then to (14) percent after the initial transition period outlined in the Policy.”

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, whose commission passed the new management policy last month as part of a legal settlement with the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy group last year, has 20 days to respond.

A spokesperson for the department said WDFW’s counsel advised the department not to comment on the petition outside of the courtroom, but sent the Chinook Observer copies of materials received from the WBGA’s attorneys.

Lets try this...

OK that worked... sort of.

Sorry I had to chop the document in three pieces due to file-size restriction here on the board 146KB

And yes, you need Adobe to see it.

THX Doc you did wayyyyyyyy better than my puny attempt to get it up! All that education you got paid off!

It reads just like the WDFW Commission wanted....I didn't feel that the WDFW Fish committee, left many openings or loose ends for anyone to "come back at them".

This needs to get done....so people can make plans to vacation in this area, so the Netters that want to stay in their business can move on with their lives.

Change is tough, but fish must be place higher up the list, than what they have been for the past 100+ years.....

Wish everyone well. Its been an interesting process.....hope its over!!!!!!

For those interested the hearings for coastal fisheries CR 102's ( creating a WAC ) are tomorrow. Steve Theisfeld put out the e mail below to help folks out.

THX Steve.


Hi Everyone,

There appears to be some confusion about the North of Falcon salmon regulation hearings tomorrow. There are 3 hearings scheduled for tomorrow:

11 am – 12 noon: Coastal freshwater recreational salmon regulations (all freshwater systems from Willapa Bay to the Hoko River).

1 pm – 3 pm: Willapa Bay commercial salmon regulations.
Please note that we have recently filed a supplemental CR-102 and there will be a second hearing on August 4th. I would have cancelled the Willapa Bay hearing scheduled for tomorrow, except I didn’t meet the cancelation deadline. We will take comments at both hearings, but for the fall fishery folks should focus on the supplemental CR-102 and the hearing in August.

3 pm – 5 pm: Grays Harbor commercial salmon fishing regulations.

If you need to refresh yourselves on what regulations we have filed, they can be found here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#15-12-115.

Catching up time. Region 6 is going through the drought exercise also. In a conference call with the GH Advisers that wanted to participate the issue was aired out. Long and short of it we are running just above record lows and on the Olympic side below as no snow pack. Water temperatures punched to 74 in the upper basin but we got to 72 in tidewater. This morning the cool weather had the river setting on 69.5 in tidewater which is helpful.

A couple of dead fish have been seen ( salmon ) but no massive die off or anything and to be honest this is normal for the Chehalis Basin except ( ah yeah the except thing ) we are running about 5 or 6 weeks early. The conditions we have now are what is usually in August.

The extended forecast does not have much rain but temperatures look to be hanging out at normal or below. The coast will run low but it looks as if appears we are in the no rain but marine air thing which makes for typical coastal weather. Inland warmer but not that much above or below average. So we wait and watch.

Now this is a bit different. I would imagine as ocean survival and down the road a bit the fall out from low survival from the drought comes home 2 or 3 years down the road we will see more of this. Tribe vs tribe, Rec vs Rec, Commercial vs just everybody. Interesting is not the word I would choose, unorganized chaos comes to mind. Anyhow read away.



The Daily World

A Federal District Court Judge handed down a decision Thursday that found the Quinault Indian Nation and Quileute Tribe has usual accustomed fishing rights 30 miles from their territory.The ruling comes after the Makah Indian Tribe filed a suit in 2009 saying at the time of the Treaty of Olympia, signed in 1855, the two tribes only had fishing areas five to ten miles into to the ocean from their territory.Judge Ricardo Martinez found that at the time the treaty was signed, the two tribes did have usual and accustomed fishing rights for 30 miles in the ocean from their territory based on evidence presented at trial, said Seattle-based Lawyer Eric Nielsen, one of the attorneys who represented the Quinault Nation.

The treaty between the United States and the Quinault and Quileute Indian Nations reserved both tribes’ rights to continue fishing in familiar areas in exchange for giving parts of their territory to the U.S.The suit was part of the 1974 U.S. v Washington (Boldt) case which confirmed tribal treaty fishing rights. That case was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978.“We make every effort to avoid intertribal conflicts such as this, and that was certainly the case here,” said Quinault Nation President Fawn Sharp. “But the Makah Tribe, joined by the State of Washington, brought this lawsuit to limit the Quinault Nation’s treaty ocean fishing so Quinault was forced to defend its treaty rights.” - See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/news/local/judg...h.xg9Q4J5K.dpuf

Why does no one question why the QIN can fish 43 miles from their original land. Do the research, they NEVER had any fishing or other trade with the Chehalis. The Chehalis were very territorial. The Chehalis should file a lawsuit to remove them from the Chehalis river, and the humptulips too!

I've never understood why the feel they have "rights" to a river they NEVER fished historically. Any judge could figure that out.