Todd you do have valid points, I personally never questioned any legal issues. I leave that up to, well people like you Lawyers

The point that I'm trying to make is that the wild steelhead survival is at risk and more fish will survive with river closures during peak months and C&R the rest of the year. Just state wide C&R won't do it. There are even rivers like the Wenatchee and Cedar and others that have recovered little with total closures.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't have the Science to back me, but I am a betting man and I'll bet you anything that this is a fact.

So do you think 3-5% mortality is acceptable? I would rather step back and look for other fisherys for a few extra years and have that 3-5% return to spawn.

I've always had respect for what you have to say, but when you act as if your words are iron and others are spouting off. That makes me think you're just another person trying to blow smoke up our arses. No need to insult people voiceing their opinion.

Wouldn't be the first time! This time however, thanks especially to Todd, Salmo G and others, I think I gotta pretty good grasp on the situation!

This is where you lose me Bruce. For the next 2 years it's ILLEGAL to intentionally kill a wild steelhead. So the law-abiding members of the angling community won't be doing any bonking. If that's not PROHIBITING the killing of wild steelhead, I guess I don't know what is?

A dead fish is a dead fish. It doesn't matter how you kill it.

Ok, I'm with you though. This blanket ban means it IS ok to kill them as long as you don't do it on purpose.

So under the "old" ways what was to keep a person from catching and releasing 10 wild fish (essentially killing one) and then bonking the 11th wild fish putting that person over their limit?

Nothing Jerry. I'm not an advocate of the "old ways". Our rivers should be managed on a river by river basis. If a river is in trouble shut it down when the wild fish are in the river, open it back up when their not in the river and allow anglers to catch hatchery fish. It's really not that hard to understand is it?

Geez Bruce you're are going to beat this to death aren't you?
Thought you were done with it!

Why are you singling me out Stew. I'm not the only person in this discussion.

If you don't like what their saying chase them off....

Todd,

Good post. Thanks.

A problem, I think, is that debating is a lot less fun, and much more work, if the rules require you to stick to facts and logic instead of opinions and emotional appeals.

Bruce,

I understand your point that WSR means some wild steelhead will still die. But the CNR mortality science evidence indicates that it will be one-twentieth as many wild steelhead dying as would have been the case with the former regulation. If I understand you correctly, you object to this reduced mortality and feel that the four affected river systems should be closed to all fishing instead. I agree that would be better for the fish whose lives are spared, but I don't think it's going to make a significant difference in short term steelhead population productivity.

How about this: if WDFW can provide greater fishing opportunity as a result of a WSR regulation, without adversely affecting the steelhead population, and the alternative is a complete closure to fishing, is that a desireable social and biological outcome?

Or does it cause the sky to fall and PETA to take over our fish resources?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Just to keep numbers easy us 5% mortality on a CnR fish. Remember that isn't 5% of the total run.

So to again to keep the numbers easy say you have a run of 2000 fish and 30% of them are caught in the season which would be 600 fish. With CnR you would have 30 dead fish or 1.5% of the total run rather then 20% if everyone of those fish are killed. Just so everyone understands the impact on the total run isn't 5% as has been thrown around.

This isn't a magic bullet but it is a step to at least start to try to continue have angling opportunity while limiting the impact.

JJ

If I understand you correctly, you object to this reduced mortality and feel that the four affected river systems should be closed to all fishing instead. I agree that would be better for the fish whose lives are spared, but I don't think it's going to make a significant difference in short term steelhead population productivity.

---------------
Is a Blanket ban going to make a difference? "IF" those four rivers have wild steelhead that are in trouble then yes, close them. Isn't this really about whats best for the fish?
--------------

How about this: if WDFW can provide greater fishing opportunity as a result of a WSR regulation, without adversely affecting the steelhead population, and the alternative is a complete closure to fishing, is that a desireable social and biological outcome?

--------------
Greater opportunity for who? Special interest groups, fishing guides maybe? Arn't there enough hatchery fish to go around? Do we really need to continue killing wild fish?
--------------

Or does it cause the sky to fall and PETA to take over our fish resources?

--------------
That's kind of sarcastic isn't it?
--------------

Todd

Your answers are the art work of an attoney!

I have been really tied up in trying to prepare my written comments for Tacoma new FHMP! As attorney you above all know the amount times that it consumes. So I will try to quickly answer the question that applies to me.

You say;
If I was standing in your shoes, I too would do whatever I could to discourage anyone or group of people getting together to legally challenge this action.

You say;
I have told you numerous times that it is "my opinion" that the Commissions action to place a state wide band without the science to support the action under the conditions that they did was illegal! It's only my opinion, but it's based on the facts that I have posted. You are free to interpret those facts in anyway that you want to. That's what attorneys are trained do ( he saids it's black, she siad it white, but the attornet will say its gray ) Most of what I have stated if "fact". I guess it's all in how you and others interpret them that gets you so excited.

Everyone can read, and everyone can make up there own minds. If I wasn't so unbelievably wrapped up in Tacoma Cowlitz River relicensing, I would love to take on the Commission on this issue. But as you know, I am going at the Cowlitz twenty four- seven!

Todd
I assume that you must believe that the "Commission" has free will to do whatever they feel like, and there is no "guiding policy" or laws that limit there authority. Correct me if I am wrong, I have always believed that the Commission must follow their own guides lines (WSP) when it come to enforcing the States Policy of the WSP. Am I correct? If that is not correct then I can see why you think that I am wrong.

If so, how could the Commission take the action that they did under these rules in the WSP? Please read them slowly and see if you can see where the commission has error

WSP rules-

Performance Standards

1. Harvest management will be responsive to annual fluctuations in abundance of salmonids, and will be designed to meet any requirements for sharing of harvest opportunity.

2. The allowable incidental harvest impact on populations shall be addressed in existing preseason and in-season planning processes as described in policy number 1.

3. Where a population is not meeting its desired spawner abundance level, the State, in managing the non-treaty harvest, may give priority to non-treaty fisheries that can minimize their impacts on weak stocks and increase their harvest on healthy stocks by: (1) using gears that can selectively capture and release stocks with minimal mortality, or (2) avoid impacts by eliminating encounters with weak populations (proven time/area closures, gear types). This must be done consistent with meeting treaty and non-treaty allocations and in accordance with agreed mass marking policies.

Fish Population Management

Spawning Escapement Policy

2. Policy Statement
The wild populations or management units to which this spawner escapement policy applies will be defined on a comprehensive, statewide, or regional basis, recognizing scientific uncertainty, in accordance with policy statement #1. The parties will review existing court orders, joint agreements, and management plans to determine if it is agreed whether modifications are necessary to be consistent with the goals of this Policy. Within this context, sufficient escapement of appropriate naturally spawning fish will be provided to encourage local adaptation and maximize long-term surplus production that sustains harvest, and to provide for recreational opportunities and ecological benefits.4 Exceptions to this general policy may be developed on a regional basis through agreement of the Department and affected Tribes to provide for recovery and rebuilding of wild stocks or where natural productivity is low.

Performance Standards

1. In each watershed region, for each species, populations and/or management units to which MSH management will apply shall be identified and the pertinent management agencies shall establish escapement goals designed to achieve MSH. MSH shall be calculated by using long-time series of accurate spawner and recruit statistics for each population. When such statistics are not available, MSH may be calculated by using historical production, habitat availability, or the best available methods for calculation.

2. The State and Tribes will seek agreement on the total escapement rates, escapement levels, or escapement ranges that are most likely to maximize long-term surplus production for wild populations or combinations of wild populations or management units. These rates, levels, or ranges will be based upon achieving MSH and will account for all relevant factors, including current abundance and survival rates, habitat capacity and quality, environmental variation, management imprecision, and uncertainty, and ecosystem interactions.

3. For other resident and anadromous trout and char, managers may employ wild fish release and other approaches that can maintain high abundance as agreed upon in watershed or sub-regional management plans that may be developed between the Department and the affected Tribes after consultation with affected stakeholders and pursuant to applicable law and court orders. Where an affected Tribe has not chosen to participate in such management, the Department may continue to rely on the escapement approach for wild managed populations contained in A Basic Fishery Management Strategy for Resident and Anadromous Trout in the Stream Habitats of The State of Washington adopted in 1986.

4. It will not be necessary to physically measure spawner abundance for each and every stock, though every stock will need to be covered by the inventory process. Index stocks that are typical of stocks within an area may be used to estimate abundance for the entire area. Surrogate measures such as standing stocks, random samples, stock composition or other measures may be substituted for actual measures of spawners. Evidence of the utility of such surrogates will need to be established for their use.5

5. If spawner management goals are not achieved for three consecutive years, or if the five-year moving average of spawner abundance falls below 80% of the goal, a management assessment including all factors responsible for the failure to reach this goal (e.g., forecast harvest rate estimates, environmental variation or spawner enumerations, appropriateness of spawner abundance goals, loss of habitat quantity and quality) will be completed within six months to determine the cause(s). The Department and affected Tribal parties will cooperatively design and implement appropriate actions to return spawning levels to, or above, the goal. Actions will include any necessary measures to meet the goals of this Policy.

Like I said, If I wasn't so tied up in the Cowlitz; it would be fun to take issue with their decision. The ground is laid out in what is stated above in the WSP. If the Commission must abide by these rules, it is still my opinion that they have acted illegally.

Obviously, you would not encourage people to read it anyway other then the way that you would like them to. People can read, and people can draw their own conclusions.

One thing that I have leaned over the years of posting on this board is birds with feathers always stick together!

Apparently no one has posted the minutes of that meeting, our I may have overlooked them in the hundreds of postings. But if they where posted, we could see what science was used to make the decision and then we could all see if it was made for political reasons.

Todd if you can't see why I believe that the Commission acted illegally after reading the above policy in the WSP, we are worlds apart! I guess if the Commission has "no rules" then you are correct and I am misreading the WSP. I know of no commission that could have such unlimited power in our state. What rules do you propose that the Commission must follow if not the above WSP rule that are listed above?

Cowlitzfisherman

JERRY G!!!!!!!!!


HELP!!!!!

STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEEEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iI RAN OUT OF FOIL A LONG TIME AGO AND MY HEAD REALLY HURTS!!!!!!!!!!

Grandpa


Why would you want to close such an informative thread? Everyone has followed Bob's Rules, no one is mad, or calling anyone names and lots of factual information is being exposed to the BB member.

What purpose will closing this thread achieve unless some members are afraid to see all sides of this issue

Cowlitzfisherman

Bob,

I appreciate that you're busy with the FHMP on the Cowlitz...I'm sure you noticed that in my earlier perspective that most everyone who is complaining about this regulation has not, and generally does not, get involved any more than standing on the sidelines b!tching did not include you. I know how much time you put into Cowlitz River issues on behalf of sportsmen.

I guess there are three ways to address your question regarding the WSP...

1. Ask you to point out exactly where the Commission is breaking the law (I already tried that one...don't post two pages of words; show me where they're breaking the law...make a point, don't ask me to find the connection in your head)

2. When you ask if I think it was illegal, I'll tell you the answer (no). (I already tried that, but you keep doing #1 over and over, that is, asking me to read your mind rather than just tell me what your point is).

3. Go through whatever you post and try to make heads or tails over what you're getting at...I tried that with the RCW's, which you then said wasn't what you meant, then I tried it with parts of the WSP, which you then said wasn't what you meant, and now I suppose I'll try it again with what you posted.

If the answer once again is not the one you're looking for, please DO NOT just post a bunch of stuff and ask if I can now read your mind.

ASK ME a specific question...something like this:

"Section (whatever), paragraph (wherever) of the WSP says this: (then say it). The WDFW Commission passed this regulation, which seems to violate the above section in this way (SAY THE WAY)." Please do not ask me to read your mind or figure out what the heck your point is anymore...just spit it out.

You posted:

"Obviously, you would not encourage people to read it anyway other then the way that you would like them to. People can read, and people can draw their own conclusions."

Not true...I just want to know what exactly your conclusion is, which doesn't mean "I conclude they broke the law." It does include "This is the specific piece of law that they broke, here is where their action is contrary to what this piece of law tells them they have to do."

Here goes...

This says (1) harvest levels will change as conditions change, (2) incidental impacts will be determined pre-season, and with in-season adjustments per Policy 1, and (3) if desired abundance is not being met, priority will be given to fisheries that are more selective either by using more selective gear or fishing in times/places where there will be less encounters of depressed fish. The final sentence means that non-treaty fishers aren't allowed to catch more than their share just because they use more selective gear types, such as the situation with the Col. R. gillnet fishery.

This third sentence also applies in a sportfishing situation like on the Col. R. Since the sporties get a shot at a lot of hatchery springers in the Wilamette, or the Wind, where the tribes aren't allowed to net, the tribes will get their share out of the Columbia.

I can't see anything in this entire section that has anything to do with WSR regulations.

Ok, we're missing lots of stuff that comes right before the quoted sections, but we'll work with it...

Management units will be defined in one of many ways, which can be modified if they both agree, escapements will be set at appropriate levels, for long term production that sustains harvest (*this means "commercial harvest"*), recreational opportunities (*this means "recreational harvest"*), and ecological benefits (other ecosystems/animals that depend on salmon being in the river, like eagles and bears). Exceptions to this can be made if there are certain needs of low productivity runs (they can agree to higher escapements or lower harvests if the runs need it).

Again, no application to WSR regulations...it just says how escapements are set, and why they're set.

Last section...

1. Escapements should be set for each management unit, and a couple of ways to set them.

2. State and tribes will seek to agree on the escapements, and the factors they should look at when setting them.

3. The state may use Wild Fish Release, or other approaches, to help maintain fish abundance or management plans that the co-managers have agreed upon. If the state and tribes have not entered into any agreed upon management plans, the state can use its older 1986 plan.

4. You don't have to count each and every run, instead you can use "index" runs, ones that tend to reflect the health of surrounding runs.

5. If escapement is not met 3 years in a row, or the 5 year average falls below 80%, they have 6 months to write a management plan that addresses all the reasons why. The state and the tribes will utilize the plan to fix the problem.

Again, this has nothing to do with WSR regulations.

Now I know I'm just a biased attorney, but the sections you culled out of the WSP don't have anything to do with this entire conversation. I encourage you to find an attorney of your own to answer these questions to your satisfaction, but my opinion is that you just went through the WSP looking for the word "harvest", copied it down, and re-printed it here without any regard for what it's actually saying.

Please get an attorney and run it by him or her. I don't want you to think I'm pulling the wool over your eyes, so please ask someone other than me.

My opinion, again, is that none of what you have printed here has anything to do with WSR.

As I noted at the beginning of this post, please DO NOT just print out a bunch more stuff and ask me to read your mind...ask specific questions about specific pieces of law, or make specific comments about specific pieces of law. Please dont cut and paste several more pages of the WSP and ask at the end if you're the only one who sees the connection...make the connection, point it out, so that I know what it is you're getting at.

I'm sorry to be so repetitive on that, but along with your great enthusiasm for doing research and re-printing various laws, you also tend to give them little or no analysis. You just print 'em out and say "THERE! See what I mean!", and the answer is usually, "no, point it out".

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd - for a young man you sure are patient. Good job, I'm glad I'm on your side.

On another note - here is a reply that I got from the Commission after I wrote them an e-mail thanking them for their actions.

Thank you for taking the time to share your comments with the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. I have forwarded a copy of your e-mail to the Commission members.



As you may know, the decision last Friday to adopt a two-year moratorium on wild steelhead retention followed a lengthy debate by Commission members and resulted in a very close vote. The proposal for a complete ban was rejected, and another proposal for a five-year moratorium was rejected in favor of the shorter-term version that was adopted.



As stated during the meeting by Director Koenings, during this two-year period the Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue its comprehensive review of the statewide steelhead management plan using today's science for improving fish management and hatchery practices.



If you'd like more information, please feel free to contact the Commission Office or the Department's Fish Program at (360) 902-2700.



Thank you again for your comments.



Sincerely,



Susan Yeager

Executive Assistant

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission

(360) 902-2267


I would be interested to see if the folks that write in complaining, will get the same message. Just a thought.

Bob,

The Commission has to comply with existing laws (can't allow a fishery that violates the ESA, for example), and follow the guidelines and policies within the Wild Salmonid Policy.

"Policies" are just that: policies. They have to be complied with, but they don't say anyone "must do this" or " absolutely can't do that"...they stay stuff more like "should create escapements consistent with the ecological and biological needs of the fish". What the heck does that mean?

What it means is that the biological and ecological needs must be considered. What are the biological and ecological needs? Well, that depends. It depends on who you ask, what fish you're talking about, what aspect of the fish's life cycle you're talking about, how it affects other fish and wildlife, etc., etc., etc.,

Now, all that stuff under "depends" is hashed out somehow...that somehow is that the public and governmental agencies involved submit testimony to the Commission on what they see, and what the scientific, social, and economic concerns are if one choice is chosen over another.

The Commission then exercises its discretion, taking those things into consideration, and makes a decision.

If someone doesn't like the decision, is it illegal? No, of course not.

If a better decision could have been made, is it illegal? No.

If it violates the ESA, is it illegal? Yes.

If it violates federal treaty rights, is it illegal? Yes. (actually, it's not really illegal, but unenforceable)

The DFW Commission has really, really, wide latitude to make decisions regarding the disposition of fish and wildlife in our state. Choosing to take away the exceptions to the standard WSR regulations in Washington is so easily within their powers that there's really not even any question...if they were somewhere in a gray area, then we could talk. But this is firmly in the kind of stuff they do every single meeting that they have.

It's just usually not as controversial of a topic as this.

Fish on...

Todd.

Thanks for your answer Todd

I have had it for tonight and I am going to hit the sack. I will go through my last post tomorrow sometime and state where I believed they were wrong. I have to work on my comments for Tacoma's most of day tomorrow, because they are due on Feb. 12. You know how that game goes

I will get back as soon as I can and give you my best shot!

Thanks again for your time


Cowlitzfisherman