WAC 220-33-070 sounds like bad news!

Sounds just like another way for WDFW to let the gill netters get around the ESA to me! If I was able to attend the up coming commission meeting this week end, I would tell them to vote this WAC down! After reading it, it appears that WDFW will not let the commercial gill net fishery on the Columbia River die. What's your read on this new proposed WAC?

To me, this proposed WAC will just open the door for the "director" to allow the commercials gill nets to fish in the sanctuaries, like the mouths Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalma and any other tributaries that are currently under protection. The last line of the WAC ((c) Specific recreational emphasis action) is nothing more then bait in a mouse trap in my mind! What' your read?

NEW SECTION
WAC 220-33-070 Limited participation commercial salmon fisheries -- Columbia River. (1) When the director determines that a harvestable amount of salmon is available, but that full-fleet fishing effort has an unacceptable risk of exceeding the available harvest or compromises other specific management objectives, the director in collaboration with the Oregon department of fish and wildlife (ODFW) director, working through the Columbia River compact, may authorize a limited participation fishery in the Columbia River in order to provide additional opportunities for commercial salmon fisheries where they might not otherwise exist. Such a fishery may be authorized for experimental or developmental fisheries, fisheries necessary to refine run size data, fisheries necessary to provide biological information, or in cases where:
(a) Other specific management objectives have been stated for the species and area in question; or
(b) Full-fleet participation with time, space, or gear restrictions cannot achieve the harvest goal.
(2) Only licensed commercial salmon fishers may participate in a limited participation fishery. Fishers who wish to have their name placed on the Columbia River limited participation register must notify the department's Region 5 office, in writing, by December 1 each year for the following year's fisheries. Interested fishers must provide a message phone number at which they can be contacted and indicate the fishing zone(s) (SMCRA 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) in which they can participate.
(3) Each year the department will, from the list of interested fishers, use random selection to create a priority list by fishing zone (SMCRA 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) in the Columbia River. Once the priority lists have been created, sale or transfer of the license shall invalidate the receiver from participation in that year's limited participation fishery.
(4) When a limited participation fishery is authorized, the department will contact fishers from the priority register at least twenty-four hours prior to the opening of the fishery. When a fisher cannot be contacted after reasonable effort, the department will select the next name, until the maximum number of allowable units of gear is reached. If not reached, the fisher's name will remain at the priority position, but the fisher may not participate in that limited participation fishery. Agreement to participate, or declining to participate, will remove the fisher from the priority position, and place the name at the bottom of the priority list.
(5) Fishers may be required to take on-board observers to collect biological information during the limited participation fishery.
(6) Examples of specific management objectives include, but are not limited to:
(a) Reducing levels of incidental catch of wild salmon stocks;
(b) Reducing incidental catch of nontarget salmon species originating from regions other than the fishing area; or
(c) Specific recreational emphasis action.

Something stinks.

WTF???

Anyone of you lawyers understand this "Specific recreation emphisis action"

What the hell does that mean...

It naturally means we're gonna get hosed......... .............

Anuty

It was our good friends....WDFW!!!

I am afraid Jerry is right! Something is beginning to stink real bad!!! Here is a little more information that I have found that relates to this WAC. It looks like WDFW is back in bed again with their long standing bed friends and buddies….the commercials

Original Notice.
Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 03-18-047[A].
Title of Rule: Commercial fishing rules.
Purpose: Establish Columbia River limited participation fishery.
Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 77.12.047.
Statute Being Implemented: RCW 77.12.047.
Summary: Provide mechanism to harvest salmon in circumstances when full fleet participation is inappropriate.
Reasons Supporting Proposal: Allow for salmon harvest.
Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Evan Jacoby, 1111 Washington Street, Olympia, 902-2930; Implementation: Lew Atkins, 1111 Washington Street, Olympia, 902-2651; and Enforcement: Bruce Bjork, 1111 Washington Street, Olympia, 902-2373.
Name of Proponent: Department of Fish and Wildlife, governmental.
Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.
Explanation of Rule, its Purpose, and Anticipated Effects: The department and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, working through the Columbia River compact, are proposing to establish a list of fishers who may want to participate in a limited participation salmon fishery. These fisheries are short-term opportunity to catch a limited number of fish, and will be scheduled when full-fleet participation would endanger the resource.
Proposal does not change existing rules.
====================================================

One has to ask ….why do we need it then!

But we've taken it up the a$$ so many times already our farts are silent...

What next??

I'd say getting done dry......with sand.

Bring on the Depends!

I have not spoken with staff on this issue but I believe that I can correctly state what it means.

For example, the last few years we have had large spring Chinook runs, but there will likely be a time when those runs have harvestable numbers, but not enough fish to allow the whole fleet to fish. This is a way reducing the participation in the fishery so that some of the netters can get the allotted commercial allocation.

This does not increase the allocation, the allocation decisions are made separate of this. If anything this is in response to recognition that the net fleet is not always going to have enough fish available to them for a full fleet fishery, either because the runs are poor or because of the sport allocation.

On the "Specific recreational emphasis action", the way this reads at the top is that a "Specific recreational emphasis action" is one reason that the department would not be able to authorize a full fleet net fishery. While unlikely at this point, the commission could declare Spring Chinook as a "recreational species", meaning that recreational users get a large allocation and the commercials get what was left over. It would likely not make sense to send a couple hundred gill net boats out for such a small allocation. There has been that action before. In Puget Sound Chinook and Coho are considered a recreational species per the North of Falcon policy.

One important thing this means to me is that the law is what can support an action by WDFW and the commission. I think Mike would agree with me on this one in that changing the laws on the books will be the way we, as sports fishers, can prevent overharvest and also protect our freedom to fish. The laws concerning fishing have provided significant cover for policies that favor commercial fishing but they can also be changed to make opportunities more equitable. So target the legislature and your representative in government to demand change.Much more effective than butting your heads against that brick wall.

Keep writing your legislators, and perhaps throw in the numbers that the Kid just came up with. Even the Southwest Washington idiots in the legislature should be able to count votes. Why not classify any fish or shellfish that can be fully exploited by a recreational fishery as a "Recreational Species"? I don't know about the rest of you, but put me in front of springers and I WILL catch them

One of the biggest problems with Columbia River fish management is that for some reason all the managing agencies are fixated on formulas that use CPUE of gillnets to predict run size. Why, I have no idea, I mean there is plenty of CPUE of recreational data to compare to actual counts going over Bonneville, and a formula should be pretty simple to figure out from that. Particularly with springer fishermen at Cathlamet you have a huge sample size and a high catch rate (well, I do, and I get checked all the time :p ). 'Bout all I can figure is with gillnetters they put an observer on board so the counts of hatchery vs. wild are accurate, and there is a perception that not all sportsfishermen report that they caught a wild fish as they think that lying about having released a bunch of wild ones will save quota or something. IF there are any of you out there who routinely do this, got news for ya, because they have those gillnetters they know exactly what the hatchery/wild ratio is. An if at the end of the day the sport report is way heavy towards hatchery fish, they KNOW you lied, and they have the best excuse in the world to keep the damn gillnetters working

Mike

Are we missing something here?

Maybe you can explain what you mean when you said; Can you name one time ever when WDFW passed a WAC so that sport fishers fleet could continue to have a harvest opportunity when the sport fishing "fleet" was not going to have enough fish available for them to substain a full fleet fishery, either because the runs were poor or because of the commercial gill netters allocations?

You say So the answer is simple; don't have a commercial gill net fishery in the Columbia then!

Mike, I believe that this is the law that you are referring to; RCW 77.50.010
Limitations on commercial fishing for salmon in Puget Sound waters.
"3) The commission may authorize commercial fishing for salmon with gill net, purse seine, and other lawful gear prior to the second Monday in September within the waters of Hale Passage, Bellingham Bay, Samish Bay, Padilla Bay, Fidalgo Bay, Guemes Channel, Skagit Bay, and Similk Bay, to wit: Those waters northerly and easterly of a line commencing at Stanwood, thence along the south shore of Skagit Bay to Rocky Point on Camano Island; thence northerly to Polnell Point on Whidbey Island.
(4) Whenever the commission determines that a stock or run of salmon cannot be harvested in the usual manner, and that the stock or run of salmon may be in danger of being wasted and surplus to natural or artificial spawning requirements, the commission may authorize units of gill net and purse seine gear in any number or equivalents, by time and area, to fully utilize the harvestable portions of these salmon runs for the economic well being of the citizens of this state. Gill net and purse seine gear other than emergency and test gear authorized by the director shall not be used in Lake Washington."

Obviously, the commission has the power to already do what is stated in WAC 220.33.070, so why propose it now?

Aunty,

Why would WDFW now be pushing so hard for passing WAC 220-33-070? Why would WDFW need to pass such new laws when they already have many other RCW's that will allow them (the commission) to do what they are proposing to do in WAC 220. 33. 070?

I hate to say it again, but this is really starting to smell like an open cesspool, until I hear some better reasoning, this one should get the big thumb down!
Look at all of the RCW's that already allows WDFW and the commission to do what WDFW is now proposing to do;

RCW 77.12.010
Limitation on prohibiting fishing with bait or artificial lures.

The commission shall not adopt rules that categorically prohibit fishing with bait or artificial lures in streams, rivers, beaver ponds, and lakes except that the commission may adopt rules and regulations restricting fishing methods upon a determination by the director that an individual body of water or part thereof clearly requires a fishing method prohibition to conserve or enhance the fisheries resource or to provide selected fishing alternatives.

RCW 77.50.120
Maintaining consistent salmon harvest levels.
It is the intent of the legislature to ensure that a sustainable level of salmon is made available for harvest for commercial fishers in the state. Maintaining consistent harvest levels has become increasingly difficult with the listing of salmonid species under the federal endangered species act. Without a stable level of harvest, fishers cannot develop niche markets that maximize the economic value of the harvest. New tools and approaches are needed by fish managers to bring increased stability to the fishing industry.
In the short term, it is the legislature's intent to provide managers with tools to assure that commercial harvest of targeted stocks can continue and expand under the constraints of the federal endangered species act. There are experimental types of commercial fishing gear that could allow fishers to stabilize harvest levels by selectively targeting healthy salmon stocks.
For the longer term, the department of fish and wildlife shall proceed with changes to the operation of certain hatcheries in order to stabilize harvest levels by allowing naturally spawning and hatchery origin fish to be managed as a single run. Scientific information from such hatcheries would guide the department's approach to reducing the need to mass mark hatchery origin salmon where appropriate

RCW 77.75.010
Columbia River Compact -- Provisions.
There exists between the states of Washington and Oregon a definite compact and agreement as follows:
All laws and regulations now existing or which may be necessary for regulating, protecting or preserving fish in the waters of the Columbia river, or its tributaries, over which the states of Washington and Oregon have concurrent jurisdiction, or which would be affected by said concurrent jurisdiction, shall be made, changed, altered and amended in whole or in part, only with the mutual consent and approbation of both states.

RCW 77.12.045
Territorial authority of commission -- Adoption of federal regulations and rules of fisheries commissions and compacts.
Consistent with federal law, the commission's authority extends to all areas and waters within the territorial boundaries of the state, to the offshore waters, and to the concurrent waters of the Columbia river.
Consistent with federal law, the commission's authority extends to fishing in offshore waters by residents of this state.
The commission may adopt rules consistent with the regulations adopted by the United States department of commerce for the offshore waters. The commission may adopt rules consistent with the recommendations or regulations of the Pacific marine fisheries commission, Columbia river compact, the Pacific salmon commission as provided in chapter 77.75 RCW, or the international Pacific halibut commission.

RCW 77.12.325
Cooperation with Oregon to assure yields of Columbia river fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
The commission may cooperate with the Oregon fish and wildlife commission in the adoption of rules to ensure an annual yield of fish, shellfish, and wildlife on the Columbia river and to prevent the taking of fish, shellfish, and wildlife at places or times that might endanger fish, shellfish, and wildlife

RCW 77.12.451
Director may take or sell fish or shellfish -- Restrictions on sale of salmon.
(1) The director may take or remove any species of fish or shellfish from the waters or beaches of the state.
(2) The director may sell food fish or shellfish caught or taken during department test fishing operations.
(3) The director shall not sell inedible salmon for human consumption. Salmon and carcasses may be given to state institutions or schools or to economically depressed people, unless the salmon are unfit for human consumption. Salmon not fit for human consumption may be sold by the director for animal food, fish food, or for industrial purposes.
(4) In the sale of surplus salmon from state hatcheries, the division of purchasing shall require that a portion of the surplus salmon be processed and returned to the state by the purchaser. The processed salmon shall be fit for human consumption and in a form suitable for distribution to individuals. The division of purchasing shall establish the required percentage at a level that does not discourage competitive bidding for the surplus salmon. The measure of the percentage is the combined value of all of the surplus salmon sold. The department of social and health services shall distribute the processed salmon to economically depressed individuals and state institutions pursuant to rules adopted by the department of social and health services.
=========================================================
Does anyone really think that we need this new WAC, after reading all the other existing laws that would allow WDFW to do what is being proposed in WAC 220.33.070? There is a lot more going on then what meets the eye…or our noses!

Cowlitzfisherman

First off, we are all going to have similar opinions on the use of gill nets so dont take anything I write as defending them.

Also, if your against this WAC, did you send in comments to the commission? It is on the agenda for tomorrow.

Also, look at WAC 220-47-500, it is about the same text. I believe the need for this text has to do with co-managing with Oregon.

Cowlitz, you say
No, I can not, but the difference is that sport is open access vs. a set number of licenses for the commercial fleet.

If the sport fishing community would agree to do it, I dont think there would be any problem coming up with a WAC which instituted some sort of lottery system so a limited number of sport fisherman could fish an area that would otherwise be closed. Right now the thinking among sport fishers has been that if the run is down enough just close it. If it is an allocation issue, the season gets shortened, sometimes a season limited to a few hours in a day.

The commercials have a different goal. They want to try to catch every last available fish. If the fish numbers are down or the allocation is small their question is how do we get some of these fish? This is the solution the department came up with. Send out only some of the fleet to set their nets so not as many fish are caught.

The recreational preference is in the North of Falcon Policy, something I have not seen online. The RCW you are pointing out are other laws that govern fisheries passed by the legislature not the commission.

The text of the RCW allows the commission to put these regs in place, the WAC is the process of putting them in place.

I do understand the argument against this, but it is more of an argument about the big picture. The frustration that the department continues to put a whole lot of resources into what is a slowly failing commercial fishery.

Wanted to add that the gill net representatives at todays meeting did not support this change

Mike

Can you tell why they did not support this change? What was there testimony?

Cowlitzfisherman

The reasons given were

1. they dont respond well to change they don't understand

2. they like the current system where the department takes volunteers for fisheries without a full fleet. I think that this may be due to internal politics within the fleet, a pecking order.

2. the netters have what they term "drift rights". While there is nothin legal about them, there is a gentlemans agreement about who is authorized to fish the most fishy locations and there is actually money exchanged buying into a drift right.

Thanks Mike!

Is that like me telling you that you can't fish "Blue Creek" unless you pay me first because I fished it before you did?


And they (the commercial gill netters) wonder why they are in a dieing occupation! It kind of sounds like WDFW has a "few" special friends in the gill net fishery. Just one more example why this fishery must come to an end! Way too many back door deals have gone in the past and its time to make a change….a big time change!

Cowlitzfisherman

I cant even fart anymore

I'll bet that makes for some stanky breath...