The "real facts" about the Feb. 6 Commission meeting!

Well we heard a lot of different opinions on if the moratorium; was it legal or not!

There's been much debate on this issue, and now I have been lucky enough to have an opportunity to read what really went on at the Feb. 6 Commissioners meeting where this all went down at! This is the record, that will soon be made public, so this board gets to see it first!

Now these are real fact, like it or not! You decide if this issue will hold up in court.
There are over 15 pages of recorded Dictaphone record of the Feb 6 Commission meeting, so it was imposible for me to attempt to type all of the back and forth talk that went on about WSR. So here are my highlights of what was said! If others want to post "their version" of what was said, and what the record says ….go for it!

_______________________________________________________________

9. ADOPTION OF 2004-05 SPORTFISHING RULES (in progress)
WA 232-12-619- Permanent Washington statewide game fish rules

ROEHL: Commissioner Ozment, then Commissioner Hunter.

OZMENT: One of the things, at this point, that I'm uncomfortable with is this whole process is that when the original rule change proposals were brought to us early on in this process, this was a subject that was not included within those proposals. (I told you so!) They did pop up and were addressed to some degree at the Port Townsend, but they weren't – I don't feel- brought to the public because of the way that the subject was ultimately broached to the Department and the Commission, and to my knowledge, I don't feel that there really has been a balanced public testimony process in regards to a motion that we're on the cusp of dealing with. And I am sure all of you on the Commission have been recipients of letters from organization and individuals, particularly in the form of postcards in opposition to any change in the retention rule. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was but it was not part of the original testimony process (I told you so). And I think we would be setting ourselves up for a really significant public relations problem if we address any motion in regards to this subject at this point.

OZMENT… But I would just like , again, to- -whether this is the proper time to address this, considering what I've stated about what I think is a lack of proper public process"

ROEHL: Commissioner Hunter.

Hunter: As the newest member on the Commission, I'm being flooded with science and being lobbied, whether it's a sack of postcards for one position, personally lobbied, or by phone calls."

ROEHL: Commission Pelly.

Pelly: …So, I think it was not brought forth, and I'm not sure that I didn't agree with the Department staff that maybe in this particular situation, to put it out for out for public process, we were going to hear the same things we had heard the year before. But I felt from day one as we started this regulation cycle that this Commission in its policy position does have the right to bring this forward to us, and I think that I had every intention, from day one, of making sure that this Commission with any new information. So, while it did not go through the normal public process with the regulation process with the regulations this year, whether or not it was an actual proposal. So I think that's one issue." " And sometimes, maybe we, you know, everybody –we like to use science when it's working or when it supports what we're doing and, you know, peoplel can blame science on the other hand. There are times when you sort of have to do what you really feel in your heart is the right thing."

ROHEL: Commissioner Van Gytenbeek.


"…I wouldn't have felt good about asking if there was a proper legal way to bring it forward. And I assume, in making this motion, that those people who were opposed to it before are just as opposed to it as they were."

Much more discussion by Van Gytenbeek and Pelly.

CAHILL: Are you saying, if this amendment fails, are you proposing that as a moratorium?

PELLY: Yes.

ROEHL: … Vote by show of hands ? [this was Van's motion, which failed a 4-4 tie] Ayes: Van, Lisa, John, and Bob. Opposed: Will, Ron, Fred, Russ]

ROEHL: Motion fails. And the main motion is before us.

PELLY: I guess I'd like to try another amendment.
[Jim Hearn, from the audience, asked for the motion to be re-read]

ROEHL: … The Rule is before us right now is the …[audience: did that pass or fail?] Failed. That motion to amend failed. So what we have before us now is a proposal to adopt the permanent, certain amendments to the permanent Washington statewide game fish rules, which really only includes, as I understand it, tiger trout. Are there any further motions to amend?

PELLY: I would, but I'm afraid I'm going to need a little help from Evan or Bill with the language. Could we take a 5 minute break?

BREAK

More discussions after break was over and then:

SHIOSAKI: So, what I'm seeing then is that this miniscule take will have no impact on the study that Director is talking about, and it will have very little impact on wild steelhead at all, so I just fail to see the utility of declaring a moratorium on the take.

[Mr. Hearn spoke from the audience]

ROEHL: Jim; not an appropriate time. [ HEARN: I'm out of order, aren't I?] You are.

ROEHL: One of the comments that Commissioner Ozment made earlier was that this didn't come through the normal planning process, and I think the effect of that is that, while those groups who were intensely watching this issue-whether it was the Wild Steelhead Coalition and various fly fishing groups, Kin County Sportsmen's Council – those groups, they're watching it. But the average person out on the river, steelhead fishermam, doesn't have a clue that this discussion has been an ongoing issue. That's because it wasn't out there in the sport fish rules proposals package. And consequently, they don't know. And I think to all of a sudden have this appear, whether it's a two-year moratorium or a six- year moratorium, it's something that I think will really do disservice to our relationship with the public. " "But rather than setting up something, which I really think is going to shock a lot of people who have no idea that this discussion has been ongoing at all."

OZMENT: "…I can tell you right now that this whole discussion in the course of this afternoon, to me, has translated from policy issues to an issue of principle. And I am extremely upset with where this is going."

So Pelly and Van Gytenbeek bruogh up the final motion and the rest was history!

Now you know the real facs!


Cowlitzfisherman

From what I heard, it seemed that Mr Hearns was at the meeting to be a voice against the moritiorium. I don't suppose you would like to include Mr. Hearns comments.

For record, Jerry

I have included ever single word that Mr. Hearn has said in the 15 pages of legal transcript recordings. If you got more than what is on the Commissions transcript record, I would suggest that support that with fact and not hear say. The facts are what are stated in the record! Not what some else thinks that they had "heard".

Cowlitzfisherman

It will be interesting to see the WHOLE transcript of the discussion. Again it amazes me that the fact that 39 people asked for this to be considere 10% of the total requests and they were blown off because of "it is too soon" arguement But people seem to forget that.

So I see that there were groups opposed to this that were lobbying as commented on by one of the commissioners. Sounds like that the opposition was out there and in their face. People were opposed to what the WSC did so are you opposed to what they other side was doing to?

JJ

Rutro Scooby!

CFM your the man! Seems this definatly validates what we've been saying all along. I'll have the entire transcript very soon and I'm looking forward to it.

Funny how the AG told people whom wanted to challenge this legally that everything was done legally.

JJ

After the vote Mr. Hearn asked his friend that was sitting with him "Did we win?". His friend answered "No".

One of the interesting aspects of this transcript is the revelation (shocking though it is!) that the Commissioners had been talking about this outside of a formal meeting. Now, how does that fit in with our "public meeting issues"? The reality of course is that is Standard Operating Procedure for every Government entity. Most of the heavy lifting and discussion occurs outside the realm of a public meeting so that the Commissioneers, Council members, Legislators can speak frankly and bluntly without it being recorded. Probably not what the Public Meetings rules wanted, but a workable solution nonetheless. Here is my take on the Feb. 6th meeting.

1. The Commission had the Sportfishing Rules on the Agenda for a long time prior to the Feb. 6th meeting. They also indicated that Public Testimony would not be taken at the Feb. 6th meeting. By looking at this transcript, it appears that they only heard from one member of the audience and did not take testimony from him.

2. It appears (by comments by the Commissioners) that the Commission had been heavily lobbied by interested parties about WSR. IMHO, this was due to the fact that WDFW had chosen not to forward the request for WSR on to the Commission in this cycle of Rules Changes. Nothing wrong at all about undertaking that lobbying effort, whether you were for or against WSR.

3. I can find no indication that the Commission is prohibited from talking about any specific rule proposal and acting upon it. Clearly, as early as Dec. of 2003 (if not earlier) anyone that cared to would have found out that there were several requests for WSR forwarded to the Commission. Just because WDFW chose not to forward that proposal for Commission action does not prevent the Commission from acting upon it.

4. Having said all of this, I believe (as a layman, not a lawyer) that the Commission acted legally. Another part of my editorial opinion - I think the Commission was blindsided by the Region 5 request to petition NMFS to have a higher allowable impact on ESA listed Steelhead in the Springer season and that may have played a role in this action as well. It could have been as simple as the Commission saying "The Commission runs WDFW - not the other way around."

CFM, I'm not going to engage in another pis*ing contest with you. I have learned my lesson. Please do not take my lack of responding to you as an indication that I think you are right. I will leave it to other, very worthy folks to respond to you if they feel that it is appropriate.

Eddie,

As a layman I feel the commission acted illegally. Only things to be considered were what was on the agenda. If it wasn't there, then it should only be for FUTURE discussions and FUTURE agendas.

This is why I'm for the repeal of WSR.

Put it on the next agenda, have discussion on it and public input, and after that if it passes, it passes.

My concern is the "system" had an end run done on it and this method was unethical and illegal.

While the commissions intentions were sincere and ethical, their method of enactiing this rule was not.

Like you really think that AG was going to say …. "Sorry, our Commission just screwed up" !

Remember, it's isn't a about any one group or persons, it’s all about a process of law that we are talking about Aunty, so please don't try to make it any more then just that!

It appears that due process was not done. Remember, it's about the process and the "process" only!

That's my only position, no mater what other may try to say.

Keep saying that word over and over, Process-process-process-process….sooner or later you will understand what I have been saying from the very beginning.

Eddie
I have no problem with what you have stated. I believe that new information now allows this board to see some factual information that they have not been allowed to see before.

As I write, I am verifying even more information about this process being legal or not. It appears that the Commissioners and the AG may have even bigger problems then just the folks in Fork's! there will more to come, when I do some more homework!

All I can say now is, it's not looking real good for the Commission.

Zen Leecher aka
I couldn't agree with you more!


Cowlitzfisherman

Here's a simple question to all who oppose the Commission's decision on WSR:

Would you still be making this kind of fuss if the Commission had decided to increase posession limits or create year-around kill seasons without "due process"?

Zen, I do not see that it wasn't on the agenda. Sportsfishing Rules for the next cycle was what was on the agenda. Clearly, there was a large and vocal group of WSR supporters that lobbied the Commission publically and privately for WSR. I think what surprised everyone (including me) is that the Commission took action on an item that was not forwarded to them by WDFW. No question, that was very unusual, but I don't see where it rises to illegality. But, I'm just a fisherman from Puyallup. Finer legal minds will make a better judgement.

JJ - Can you post a link to that AG Opinion or a copy of it?

It would be interesting to see what that opinion was based upon and what legalities were addressed.

I'd like to know who in the AG made that claim. I'd like to see the name of the person with that opinion.

Absolutely! If the commission passed a statewide blanket increase of possession limits and use this process to do it. Of course I would. Thats a silly argument.

Good luck with that....I believe your assertion that the commission acted without due process has been legally refuted like six times already....

There really aren't that many straws to grasp at, are there?

...and...

Again folks, and this is probably the most important aspect of what we are talking about here....more than two thirds of all steelhead fishermen are in favor of wsr. I don't know how many times i've heard cries of foul over this or that over how the wdfw spends our money...

Sounds to me like they are FINALLY doing things the way the majority of their constituency would have them do it.

...but i sense alot more boo-hooing about its being all the city folks, even though I could easily provide you with the names of five Forks based guides that are also in favor of the wsr rule....

In the end, the courts may have to decide..................................................................if it even gets that far.

"more than two thirds of all steelhead fishermen are in favor of wsr."

What makes you think that? I'd be very interested in the source of that statistic. I'm in favor of using WSR as a management tool also, but that doesn't mean I like this policy or how it came about.

.


All of the information is not public. When it is, you may have a different opinion.

EXACTLY !!!!!

This will be my only post on this thread...so don't bother asking for more.

1. It wasn't illegal. See the numerous discussions on all the other threads where CFM brought up 24 pages of different laws and policies trying to find something...and didn't find anything.

2. The Commission doesn't think it was illegal.

3. The AGO doesn't think it was illegal.

If you really think it was illegal...all of you armchair lawyers jump in and...

1. Sue them yourself

2. Hire an attorney and sue them

3. Wait for Forks to do it for you (which they aren't going to do)

4. Post on the internet all day about how illegal it was, which does nothing.

5. Piss and moan about it, which does nothing.

I already know that it's not illegal, and all the folks that think it was will not do either #1 or #2, and Forks will not do #3, so all they have left is to post about it and show how great of attorneys they are, or sit home and complain about it in private.

Unless you plan on doing #1 or #2, drop it. You're doing worse than nothing, because besides nothing getting done, you're making yourself look foolish.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, you weren't the one who offered the opinion that the actions weren't illegal, were you?

Zen, it wasn't Todd. The City of Forks met with some Commissioners and somebody from the AG's office and Forks was told that the proceedings were not illegal by that somebody from the AG's office. Forks was told that they could file a motion in the 60 days after the Feb 6th meeting to meet with the Commission about the moritorium.

Todd you guys can spin it all you want!

The truth is your loosing your argument! The legal "snow ball" has started rolling, and its heading your way:D

This should really add even more strength to your theory about Forks

PS; I hear that there is a lot more snow in the path ….its getting bigger and bigger

________________________________________

Chamber of Commerce
March 1, 2004

Chairman State Fish& Wildlife Commission
600 Capital Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Chairman Roehl:

The Forks Chamber of Commerce share the concerns raised by the City of Forks regarding the decision by the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission to impose a two year-statewide moratorium on retaining wild steelhead.

The Forks Chamber of Commerce is a proud promoter of the healthy runs of salmon and steelhead in our Olympic Peninsula Rivers. Our Community welcomes all fisherfolk to enjoy our rivers and make their cast for sport or for food, and perhaps a trophy.

We feel that the manner in which the Commission made its decision failed to allow for public input or comment; and that the opportunity for public input is fundamental to an propitiate decision-making process. This is especially true on such a matter as this, that has a significant impact on our local rivers as well as our community.

There are many voices that should be heard, including residents, sportsmen, river guides, hotels & motels, and the Native American tribal authorities. We recognize that this is not a simple issue; and that there are strong opinions on all sides- all the more reason for public comment.

We also feel that the public, including the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Forks, should have the opportunity to read and study the scientific data upon which the Commission's decision was based. We would expect the data to be specific to rivers, and not general to the state as a whole. We have not seen such scientific data; but believe that a decision of this magnitude must have a scientific basis. In addressing all rivers in the state of Washington, the Commission's decision doe's not take into account the successful steelhead enhancement program at Snider Creek on the Sol Duc River that makes use of wild, brood stock.

For these reasons, the Forks Chamber of Commerce supports the City of Forks as they seek reconsideration of this decision. We join with them in requesting a stay in the decision.

Sincerely,

Francis X. Walters
President

Jerry, thanks for the info.

THANK YOU!

Todd

Gosh...they asked awfully nicely.

The only snowball i see is the one in Hell on which your hopes of having this decision overturned are pinned, better act fast....it's melting quickly.

...and now if you'll excuse me, I need to go shout into the wind, piss up a rope and throw the baby out with the bath water.

I guess something somebody said somewhere somehow somewhat summarizes the legalities.
:rolleyes:

H20

H20

I hope that you didn't drink to many beers before you started pi$$ing up that rope!

And now the "Snow Ball" then becomes a huge avalanche

Now even Todd will be getting a little more concerned. He knows the power of the Tribes!
You may screw with the little guy in Forks, but once the tribes steps in the game is almost over!


Quileute Tribal Council

O2 March 2004

Chairman Will Roehl
Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capital Way North
Olimpia, WA 98501-1091

RE: Quileute Tribal Concerns with the Commission's Wild Steelhead Position


Dear Chairman Roehl:

This letter is being sent to you today to let you know that our government is still evaluating the impacts of the recently announced moratorium on retention of wild steelhead by non-tribal sports fishermen. While that evaluation is underway, we did want to raise a few concerns about the approach utilized by the Commission in the adoption of this moratorium.

First, as you are aware, we are the co managers of the fishery for the entire Quillayute watershed. As such, under various Bolt decisions, there is an obligation by the State as co-managers to consult with the Quileute Tribe in regards to any actions that could impact the management of wild steelhead on this watershed. We are unaware of any efforts by the commission or WDFW to have prior consultation with the Quileute Tribe on this action.

Second, we are also concerned that the general public, tribal or non-tribal, did not have an opportunity to comment on the adopted moratorium. We note that the proposed rule packet for sports fishing regulations did not indicate any proposed statewide moratorium on wild steelhead. It is also extremely interesting to note that the same packet had some comments regarding such an idea in section labeled "2004-05 Sports fishing Proposals not Included for Public Comment." The reason for not including this for public discussion and hearing was that the Commission considered this during the last major regulation change cycle and did not adopt it because it was too soon to re-adress this issue.

Management terms under the 1981 court case known as Hoh vs. Baldrige decision, determined that salmon on the Quillayute, Hoh, Queets and grays harbor has provided the necessary conservation needed for each individual system and has proven itself. We suggest that the commission consider the benefits on such an approach to steelhead management.

In addition, not allowing non-tribal wild steelhead retention on the Quillayute System will likely produce escapements that would reduce survival per spawner by exceeding carrying capacity, create waste concerns and potentially raise racial criticisms towards tribes that do not adopt similar management restrictions.

Third, and finally, we reserve any and all rights our Tribes and its members have under treaty with regards to this issue.

Again, we are currently reviewing this issue to determine what action we may need to purse that would protect the best interests of our government our people and our resources.


Sincerely,

Russell Woodruff,
Chairman

The tribes do carry a lot of weight as co-managers. This line caught my eye

potentially raise racial criticisms towards tribes that do not adopt similar management restrictions.

I don't think everyone will read what you read Aunty. Many are going to say that even the tribes think it was wrong and they are standing right along the sport fishermen side on this one. Now that would be a good thing for all! They didn't have to mention the sport fishermen, but on this issue they have stood by there bothers.

I'll beat you the people of Forks don't look at it your way either

Jerry, I think you're beginning to see the power that their letter really carries

Nice catch Jerry. Bad press is one thing they don't want.

But I will admit the tribes do have a big roll in management.

JJ

You mean they'll look bad if they're the only group still killing wild steelhead? Oh, no.......not that.

But, all the criticism that will rightly come their way will all be due to racism, of course.

And you want to get in bed with THAT group, huh cfm? Sleep well, then.

Here's a solution. How about boycotting the new moratorium and go catch and kill every nate in the systems. Once they are all gone you won't have nothing to biatch about. Maybe you could buy plane tickets and fly to the Midwest to fish. It's really strange to watch this occur as an outsider. it's the same old shiat that we went through 14 years ago. The cruel experiment of WSR has worked well for us, but what the heck would we know about managing fish. Not that the Midwest is the Holy Grail of Steelheading, but we appreciate the hell out the fish we got from you guys and don't have any plans to lose the wild ones we have any time soon.

I will admit that I will be right in the front row protesting the tribes if they exploit the WSR rule ..They will too. They do have an important point though and that is that they want to make sure everyone knows that they are the trump card in all fishing regulations, quotas and seasons. Anyone participating in the last meeting of the North of Falcon process just now getting underway will tell you how the tribes have manipulated that process to their advantage. The tribes want to control our fisheries and they have been doing a good job to that end. They are part of the process and feel they were not included so they will oppose the ruling.

Small group discussions are what gets things done with the commission and I have seen how the public testimony process is a patronizing side show that the commission has to put up with. Time and time again ttestimony and science have taken a back seat to commission decisions. Small groups like WSC have learned to work the process and have made progress forwarding their agenda just as PSA has done. The commercials have always been in front of the commission and WDFW and the sports community is still teething.. All of a sudden the process has shut out public testimony??? What has really happened is that the commission and WDFW has been pleading for input and it has been really lacking so they choose to do what the vocal groups ask for. If you don't ask you are not at the table when the decisions are made. So here comes NOF this week in Mill Creek and Lynnwood....Will you opposition squealers be there>?I will be. squeal for me boy!!! Weeeeeeee!!!

Do you have gill nets in your rivers/lakes or whatever bodies of water you're referring to? Out here, even after rivers are completely closed to sportfishing, the runs decline because of the nets.

Them first, then me?

Whatever happened to leading by example?

Good point JF...

...all except for this part " the runs decline because of the nets."

They are certainly a huge contributing factor and I don't want to minimize that, however the full blame for our declining runs cannot be placed solely on the backs of nets.

Exactly the problem JG... They do not intend to change their practices to any extent. In fact they WILL get taking a higher percentage in the future. I dont know who H2O polled, perhaps 3 of his friends... but 2/3's happy with this is absurd, nobody likes the end around. All this is doing is tearing apart any chance we ever had of making any kind of diference by uniting as sportsmen. That lovely little by product also helps the tribes, commercials, and anyone else with a vested interest! DIVIDE AND CONQUER!! considering the nanny nanny boo boo's I've witnessed here, mission accomplished. As far as steelheading goes I could care less... way overrated for the most part. I Just dont like seeing us made to look foolish and weak as a group.

You can find a link to the complete commission minutes here.

[link deleted]

Bruce-
It says I am not a member with sufficient permission and thus can not access the page.

Ok lets try this again. Here's the link:

http://www.gamefishin.com/commission-transcript.htm

Bruce,

Is it the transcript of the meeting, or the minutes?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Elkrun, WDFW's preference survey done a couple of years ago put the percentage of steelhead fishermen that advocate releasing all wild steelhead at over 60%.

Transcript.

Cool...could you shoot me one via e-mail...the other one I got today wouldn't open.

Thanks!

Todd

*edit: nevermind...I see you turned it back into a link. Thanks!*

You're right, there are other factors. The point I was trying to make was that with all other problems fixed (pristine habitat, no dams, no sportsmen) the runs would still decline as long as the tribes are free to net pretty much at will.

I agree fully Dans S. Using others actions to justify your own just doesn't cut it. Hey Jacob, take it form an old man. "Wait broke the bridge".

Good golly Jacob, We all know that the nets are bad, but unless you have about 20 million dollars for a protracted court case you would likely lose, we need to find OTHER solutions. WDFW has lost EVERY case (around 100) they have that deals with tribal fishing rights. What some people don't understand is that when the treaties were signed it was not the white man giving the tribes rights, it was the tribes extending privileges to the white man.

This is a cut and paste from my post on Gamefishin board.

Bruce, thanks for getting the complete transcript up. For us fish junkies and government junkies, it's a great read! What is most interesting is that the Commission seemed to cover most (if not all) of the issues that we have seen debated on the various boards. I read about:

Foregone opportunity

Lack of public involvement

Trend lines showing wild steelhead going downhill

Quite frankly, after reading this transcript, I am strangely comforted. It appears that the Commission is quite representative of the Sports Fishing Community. The moratorium passed on a very narrow margin and the discussion showed a real debate on the issue. My guess is that if any one of us were sitting on the Commission deciding this issue, our views would not be nearly as black and white as we seem to be on the various boards.

Now we get to see what the next moves are. I have seen (on PP) a number of letters from organizations about this ruling. One has the most possible import - a letter from the Quilleute Tribal Council. In the letter, they did not say what they were going to do only that they were evaluating their options. We shall see what happens next.

Once again Bruce you have done a service to us all in getting the transcript up. Facts are sometimes hard to find in a heated debate like this. The transcript gives us a rare insight into how the Commission made this decision. I for one appreciate getting that look.

Thanks Bruce!

Way too much typing for me to do!

Thanks for taking the time to retype it.


Cowlitzfisherman

This may surely be the single most damaging statement that was said
about how the Commission made its decision! Read it, and read it
closely, then spin-spin-away!

Ron Ozment states, Van Gytenbeek reply: You can say what you want about this process, and put whatever spin
you want to on it, but when Commissioner Van Gytenbeek said:

"I wouldn't have felt good about asking if there was a proper legal way
to bring it forward."

That said it all!!! You really don't have be an
attorney, or have a law degree to understand what he said!

This was draft #5, if it means something else; it sure would have been
edited long before now!

Now what do you suppose that means?

Lets not forget, the Commission had brought up not one, but two
separate moratoriums for a vote that was not published in their agenda.
There were 2 completely different proposals that came up for a vote that
were not made public, and were done without pubic notice or comment. One
was for a moratorium from April 1 of this year until March 31, 2009
which was voted down. And then a "second moratorium" was brought to the
floor for a vote, and that one passed. That's "two separate" moratoriums
that the public was not informed or notified of.
No public comment was taken on either issue before the Commission acted.
Neither of those 2 proposals were in the proposed "2004-05 rule package"
that were sent to the Commission for their approval.

Once the general public reads these minutes, I believe there will be
outrage about how this process was allowed to happen. The issue about
saving WSR will become second place to the issue about how an
inappropriate process was allowed to proceed, and how the 2 proposed
moratoriums managed to slip by the legal process.

When government circumvents due process and law and procedure order,
people become quickly outraged. There are only a few people on fishing
boards, and look what already happen here. I believe that once this
issue becomes known to the public, we will see that happen there also.
It doesn't matter if you were for WSR or not, this issue has become much
bigger than just that.

The transcript speaks for itself.

Hairlip

Everybody is gonna cut and paste their little snipits of the transcript to defend their position... whatever...

After reading the entire transcript all I have to say is that I would not want to be one of the commisioners faced with that desicion...

You either stop harvest in the hopes that they will continue to stay above escapement
-or-
You are forever labled the commisioner that allowed wild steelhead to fall below the brink of disaster....

To much pressure for me...

That's why you are "Piper" and not "Commissioner Piper"

I could just hear the Chair now " Piper" Piper down!

,


Translated to english that means,


" I dont care if you've proven a point or not, I still wont listen"

:rolleyes:

You might as well try to convince grandpa
to vote democrat....


edit...

hopefully this precious "process" you all are griping that wasn't followed will be held up by another process called "appeals" long enough for the fish to actually recover...

Fish won't recover until the nets come out.

OZMENT:....and have to again, talk about the public process and , think, the disservice that we’re doing to the public, the disservice we’re dong the staff, and ultimately the disservice that we’re going to be doing on ourselves. I can tell you right now that this whole discussion in the course of this afternoon, to me, has transcended form the policy issues to an issue of principle. And I am extremely upset with where this is going.

Wow did Ozment see this coming or what!!

You make some really good points Hairlip.

Now let's see who the spin doctors will be to attract your comments. Now that Bruce has made all the transcripts available to read, everyone can ask Todd or any other member what they think of the transcribe records of the meeting. To darn bad we didn't have those transcripts before Bob had to shut down the "other" thread.

There is much to talk about, and I am glad to see that you have taken the time to read that transcript. I hear that its been sent out to the press, and several hunting and fishing publications to review. It's about time that the sport fishermen get an opportunity to see why some rules that make no sense to many get put into our fish and game rules.

I have noticed that the ones who where carrying the sword have fallen back a pace or two once the real story became public. I am glad to see that we are all now talking about the "facts" instead of about a discussion of each other.

I see that Jerry has now stated

I wonder why Jerry or the other WSC members didn't come out and tell the board that on the first thread" Wild Steelhead Kill Outlawed in WA for 2 Yrs!" ? Seems to me that there were some 670 posts made before the thread was locked up, and I don't recall the fact that WSC ever admitted that they had meet with 7 of the 8 Commissioners. I could be wrong, so if someone wants to go back through all those posts, maybe that issue can be cleared up.

I wonder if WSC told the commissioners the facts that were stated by the well known and highly respected member "Smalma"? He just posted this on the thread "Best Organization?"
Would all of those Commissioners still have voted for WSR if they had been given that same information? Maybe that's why we were supposed to have an open and public comment period before any special agendas are slipped to a vote!



Good job!


Cowlitzfisherman

I'll have to agree that whatever anyone else's opinion might be on the legality of decision, it seems clear that at least several of the Commisioners believed they were acting outside of the prescribed legal and ethical guidelines.

The commissioners have had that information for 2 years Cow, they were well aware of the questionaire. If, when you read the transcript, your eyes and mind are open you can see that the commissioners that voted for the moritorium were concerned for the resource and also concerned about the public imput but they put their concern for the resource first.

In looking at our own statistics for the last couple of years, we continue to see what many of us refer to as the Washington or the Puget Sound fish curve, which can be applied to any state or province, which is basically high on the left and low on the right. We’re going downhill with these fish, and I just say when are we going to try to protect them and save what’s left. And that’s why I make the motion; I are about these fish. I think there’s enough fish for those who want to take a fish home, but as wild fish continue to diminish, when are we going to make a decision to save them?


In looking at our own statistics for the last couple of years, we continue to see what many of us refer to as the Washington or the Puget Sound fish curve, which can be applied to any state or province, which is basically high on the left and low on the right. We’re going downhill with these fish, and I just say when are we going to try to protect them and save what’s left. And that’s why I make the motion; I are about these fish. I think there’s enough fish for those who want to take a fish home, but as wild fish continue to diminish, when are we going to make a decision to save them?


Are we going to sit here and not say, “Lets turn; let’s take some action and turn this around,” or are we going to continue to go in that direction? I’d rather take the chance and err on the side of, again, the benefit of the doubt goes to the resource, and somebody jive years form now can tell me, “You didn’t need to do that, “ rather than answering to folks in five or ten years saying, “why didn’t you do something? You knew which way the graph was going” So, I’m there; the benefit of the doubt-close call- the benefit of the doubt goes to the resource. And I think that is such a priceless resource, and we have unknown valued of these genetic variations that we have no idea today how valuable they’ll be in the future. I’m not willing to take that-to wait any longer to take some action.


If we’re down to – I was no a privy to the meetings and discussions two years ago, but another fact that if we have gone form 16 rivers at that point down to 11 now, that’s further evidence hat these runs are continuing downward. I think it’s incumbent upon us a the Commission to step forward and take the lead, and say we are here to preserve and enhance our natural resource. And I can’t sit by and watch this go over the cliff and have none of us able to retrieve it.

:D

:D

Can you hear us now?

Aunty

You’re the only one that is saying that!

You may THINK that you are doing them a good thing, but maybe it time that you seek out help. You need to step back and take a deep breath before you start accusing others of issues that only you are saying. You're doing a big discredit to the work that WSC has done on other issues. Think about for a while!

You can only yell "woof" so many times before people stop listing. How many more times are you going to yell before you learn?

Cowlitzfisherman

Thats exactly what I was thinking, I don't think anyone has said that WSC did anything wrong/illegal. I think the focus has been on what the commission did. I may not agree with WSC and the events that took place but did they do anything wrong or illegal? I don't think so.

Gadflys. :rolleyes:

I'm closing this and the other thread for a couple of hours till I get back from some business----- seems it needs some baby sitting

Thanks for finding the key Jerry

Wow getten a little rough in here ????

Eddie
I was reading another board, and I read your comments there. Do really
believe what you said when you wrote:
Eddie, you’re a member of WSC, is this really how you and other members
feel about the Commissioners? If I was a Commissioner, Eddie I would not be a happy Camper.

I just looked at my WSC membership list (dated 8/13/03) and could not find Eddies name on it. Maybe you have an updated list hairlip? Or perhaps just trying to spread a little more of that stinky stuff around.

Gosh Jerry, this was Eddies reply to me, ,


At least I only talk from one side of my mouth Jerry. The WSC site doesnt give that info out I guess.

Hairlipangler, a wise lawyer once said, "Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to." It goes double when trying to state a fact. I am not a member of WSC, not now, not ever. The quote that you attribute to me is not me, I believe it might be Todd or Jerry, both members of WSC. I must say however, that I feel flattered to be associated with that fine group - at least in your mind. If I were a member of any sportfishing/conservation group it would probably be WSC. From everything that I know about the WSC and their stance on the issues, I agree with them far more than I disagree. The folks that I have met from WSC are good fishermen and even better stewards for the resource.

Now, in regards to your other assertions. I stand by what I say being Standard Operating Procedure for every Board, Commission, Council, etc. that I have personally seen. It is naive to assume that all of their work is done in front of the public. Backroom politics is SOP - I have not been privvy to the Fish & Wildlife Commission's inner workings, but if you read the transcript, it is obvious that the Commission knew that this moratorium issue was going to be introduced. How did they know that if they had not had conversations beforehand? I certainly do not see this as a bad thing, or an unethical thing - it is just reality. If any of the Commissioners are offended by what I say, I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

Now, the question for you Hairlipangler is what are your ethics? Will you stand up and admit that you are wrong (about my WSC membership and the posting above) or will you do something else? The choice is yours.

Hairlip,

I think if you were to look a little closer you'd find that that post was posted by Rich Simms (WSC member and President) and NOT Eddie (not a WSC member). I think I remember Rich posting that, at least.

I know it's fun for all you guys to be looking for conspiracies under every rock to blame everything that you don't like on, but there isn't anything to find here.

I think the made up conspiracies have gone far enough...

And this doesn't mean "the heat is too hot" or some other crap like that...it means that there is no conspiracy of back room political deals involving the WSC, PETA, and the Taliban to steal all your fishing rights.

Fish on...

Todd

,

Sorry Eddie, you didnt use quotes and I misread the post. My bad.

No problem Hairlip, thank you for being a stand up guy. I will try and remember those pesky quote marks in the future.

Now that was a reasonable mistake, and a reasonable reply ]

Eddie....as a fellow peddler you should appreciate the value of backroom deals and persuasion. I find that a fishing trip with a congressman is a valuable backroom tactic. Maybe some face time with the commissioners is what it takes to get something pushed forward. If the WSC had the persistence to pull off a persuasive argument and it resulted in a decision they were pushing for then I saw "BRAVO"...good job of selling.

Remember what Alec Baldwin said in the great classic (for sales people) Glengarry Glen Ross:

"Second place gets the steak knives" So true.

Grandpa - true words from a professional. It always made me wonder (until I got involved) how all of these big controversies get voted on in a unanimous fashion.

City officials meet with WDFW board members
Posted on Tuesday 09 March @ 11:09:45


by George McCormick
On March 3, Forks city officials met in Olympia with fours members of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission.
No action was taken at the meeting, but Forks Mayor Nedra Reed felt some progress had been made. They invited us to petition the commission for reconsideration of a two-year ban on the retention of wild steelhead due to take effect April 1.


Reed was accompanied by City Attorney/Planner Rod Fleck and City Clerk Dan Leinan.
The Forks group asked the commission to give them the opportunity to have input in the decision. We also asked to have the best available science made available to us, Reed said.

The Forks contingent asked for the meeting because they contended the process for making the decision was flawed. The wild steelhead issue was not on the agenda two months ago, Reed said. It was raised during the commission meeting and we didn’t have an opportunity to address the issue.

The Forks group wasn’t there to protest the decision itself, but the process by which it was arrived at. The Forks Chamber of Commerce and West End Business and Professional Association joined in sending a letter to the commission in support of the city’s efforts.

Saying the organizations are proud promoters of the healthy runs of salmon and steelhead in our Olympic Peninsula rivers. Our community welcomes fisherfolk to enjoy our rivers and make their cast for sport or for food and perhaps a trophy. We feel the manner in which the commission made its decision failed to allow for public input or comment …

We also feel that the public … should have the opportunity to read and study the scientific data upon which the commission’s decision was based, the letter said. We would expect the data to be specific to rivers and not general to the state as a whole. We have not seen such scientific data; but believe that a decision of this magnitude must have a scientific basis … the commission’s decision does not take into account the successful steelhead enhancement program at Snider Creek on the Sol Duc River that makes use of wild brood stock.

The Quileute Tribe also sent a letter to the commission supporting the city’s view and saying that as co-managers of the Quillayute River System, they were not included in the decision-making process.

The tribe’s science finds healthy wild runs on the rivers, Reed said. I believe they are good stewards of their resources.
The city is expected to avail itself of whatever legal process is available to them to set the decision aside, according to Fleck.

So Ms. Reed thinks the Quilayute tribe is a good steward of the salmon and steelhead, huh? Must have been that low-water salmon netting that convinced her.

OK, I'm done taking anything she says seriously.

Hey Dan


Not taking any sides on that issue, but didn't the tribes stop their netting during that low water condition, even though they were legally entitled to continue? I don't remember all the details that were posted on our board when that went on, but I thought that I remember that after some protest by Bob and a few others, the netting stopped and the fish were allowed to pass.

If that was the case, then they really wouldn't be bad stewards anymore then our Commissioners are. According to all that's been said, our own commission has allowed a fishery to continue on week stocks that are week and heading downward. So what's the difference between our own Commission and the tribes when it comes to being "good stewards"? If we do it, it's ok, if they do, it not?

Can you see the hypocrisy?

Yeah, they stopped netting. Of course this was well after WDFW had closed that section to sport fishing and after a big protest "fish-in" that was picked up by local new channels.

I see the Commission being too slow in taking action, and the tribes being even slower.

I guess I don't see the hypocrisy you're referring to.

Well Cow, you made my point for WSR--- I think they are both poor stewards of the resource, hence the push for WSR by WSC- in part because WDFW refused to forward requests for WSR on to the commission with their "blessing".

Actually CF....the tribes were caught on film herding fish with sleds into their nets taking advantage of real low water and fish that were sitting ducks in pools.....Calling them stewards of anything is a stretch for sure.

Grandpa


I hate all nets!

But does it really matter if you "heard" the fish into a gill net or you just "drift" a curtain of death 150 fathoms long by 20 foot deep down the river until the fish get entangled? Same exact affect, but one is just quicker then the other.

If the Commercial boys could figure out a way to do it in the Columbia, they would be on it in a heart beat!

Maybe the Commissioners can work out a back door deal when the commercial boys figure out how to do it!

I'd like to hear some facts about this back door deal I keep hearing about.

The whole process of fisheries management is a backdoor deal if your definition is getting things done outside of the public meetings..Same thing in politics and business.
OOOOOOOOO big conspiracy!!!! That is how business is conducted out here in the real world.

Jerry

Have you heard anything about the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) being called in on this issue? This sounds like it might be right down there alley!


"NORTHWEST CENTER What Is The Northwest Center?

Pacific Legal Foundation's Bellevue, Washington, office was established in 1992 to enhance the organization's effectiveness in challenging government regulations that infringe upon private property rights and other constitutional protections in the states of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Idaho.

In the past ten years, the Northwest region has been the national focus of debate over the delicate balance between the competing interests in a healthy economy and jobs and societal goals to protect potentially threatened species (e.g., spotted owl). Similarly, regulations that demand private property without compensation for public use in the form of wetlands preservation, wildlife habitat, and open space are increasingly being implemented by all levels of government in the region. As property owners and regulators confront each other in court, the opportunity for setting significant national precedent is available through the work of PLF's Northwest Center.

Key Issues Being Litigated

The office challenges numerous kinds of government actions that violate individual and economic liberties protected by the Constitution, including: regulatory "takings" of private property without compensation; arbitrary and capricious denials of reasonable permit applications; unjustified permit fees and exactions that discourage beneficial development; harmful zoning regulations that bear no relation to a legitimate government purpose; unjustified restrictions on reasonable land use under the guise of "habitat preservation" or "steep slopes protection," just to name a few."

Why wouldn't the PLF step in and help out the folks in Forks? Maybe then the whole game plan that Forks may not be able to afford to litigate this would be moot! I know that WSC has there attorneys (Todd) but once PLF gets involved this whole issue may flip-flop faster then a pancake in a frying pan!

So as and officer of WSC, what are you hearing about the PLF getting involved in this issue?

Is it true?

Is it false?

Or is it I don't know?

CFM,

My guess is that the PLF could give a rat's a$$ about a WSR rule in Forks. Now if there was a potential ESA listing that would further curtail the already severely restricted logging, then you'd see them be concerned, or if there was some sort of new wetland regulation that would prevent development, or something like that.

Passing a WSR rule doesn't take anything away from Forks, property wise, so PLF could care less, in my opinion.

Is there a rumor, or are you starting one here?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd
Are we now having a new rule saying that all questions are starting rumors?

Why is it that you just turned around my statement? Did you see one word in my post that said this was a rumor?

I was always taught that a "question" (?) was not a "rumor". What school did you learn that a question (?) was a rumor? :p

Seems like a pretty simple question to me Todd.
That sure sound like just like questions to me. You can make, or spin it anyway you want to.

Not trying to spin it, but it seems to me if you're asking if something is true or false, then there must be something on the table to consider.

Is what true?
Is what false?

" So as and officer of WSC, what are you hearing about the PLF getting involved in this issue?

Is it true?

Is it false?

Or is it I don't know?"

It's not true, false, or I don't know. I have heard nothing about PLF getting involved.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Every time I disagree with you it is not a "spin"...it's just me disagreeing.

If I were a member of a chamber of commerce representing business owners who's livelihoods are being impacted by restrictive public resource use regulations based upon percievably spurious fears and assumptions of ecological threat, then I would probably wish to at least confer with the PLF for an opinion.


I found the following at the PLF website .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the past ten years, the Northwest region has been the national focus of debate over the delicate balance between the competing interests in a healthy economy and jobs and societal goals to protect potentially threatened species (e.g., spotted owl). Similarly, regulations that demand private property without compensation for public use in the form of wetlands preservation, wildlife habitat, and open space are increasingly being implemented by all levels of government in the region. As property owners and regulators confront each other in court, the opportunity for setting significant national precedent is available through the work of PLF's Northwest Center.

The Northwest Center of the PLF is headed by Principal Attorney, Robin L. Rivett, who may be reached at PLF's headquarters in Sacramento, California, (916) 362-2833.

The Northwest Center of the PLF is staffed by:
Managing Attorney Russell C. Brooks - rb@pacificlegal.org
Attorney Amy P. Dempsey - apd@pacificlegal.org
Fund raiser James G. Katzinski - jgk@pacificlegal.org
(and) Legal secretary Roberta L. Carlson

The Northwest Center office is located at:
10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 109
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (425) 576-0484
fax (425) 576-9565

Todd

I don't know why you took it the way that you did!

If you would reread my post, my question was addressed to Jerry, not you So are you now Jerry's counsel :p

Next time I will ask:

"As officers of WSC which one of you will answer!"


Cowlitzfisherman

I know you guys are steelhead fanatics BUT..at the Mill Creek NOF meeting last night Pat Patillo said that the tribes are blocking any further catch and release seasons for salmon. Now how about steelhead? I guess steelhead don't matter as much for the tribes...I know they feed their cats and dogs with wild steelhead so I suppose salmon are more important. They say sports fishers can't account for their catches and certainly couldn't if they release all the wild ones so it is better to deny the CNR fisheries all together. The way I heard WDFW tallk it sounds like the tribes give them permission for everything. Now what about the tribes permission slip for the WSR? Did WSC consult with the tribes and get one ahead of time Jerry?

I have heard nothing about the PLF being interested in the Forks issue. Why don't you call them about Tacoma Power and the Cowlitz issue--- maybe you could get some help from them. If Todd was my counsel, we would have to have all consultations on the river.

Oh I forgot one other interesting thing...The tribes don't have to abide by CNR..no shocker there. And remember the no taking the fish out of the water rule? Well the tribes don't have to do that either.

What a country!!!.....

Oh and the non-indian commercials have to abide by the CNR rules...they can take the wild ones out of their gill nets and put them in a revival tank that is inside the gunwales of the boat and then toss them over the side...Then if some of them die..oh well 50% mortality ain't bad. If they happen to rip out a gill or two in the process they can keep those wild fish and sell them.

That all makes perfect sense....

No Grandpa, we didn't consult the tribes about their wishes anymore than we consulted Forks about theirs. We made the fish the top priority.

Jerry

What makes you think that we didn't contact PLF ?

Hey JG you were sitting right in front of me last night and I suspect heard the same things I heard..Didn't they keep saying they had to consult with the tribes on just about everything? Didn't they say to check with the tribes before floating a new idea? I'm not saying you should have or should in the future but I just thought it was interesting how much weight the tribes have in every move WDFW makes. They want something in return is what I heard for everything they agree to. Sometimes I wonder why we even have a WDFW dept. Just turn the whole fisheries and hunting operation to the tribes. They could then charge us all to fish and hunt.

The tribes are co-managers of the resource. I don't know if co-manage means 50-50 split or what. Seems to me that WDFW and the tribes co-managing is kind of like playing monopoly with somebody that won't make a fair trade, the trade always has to be in their favor. The WSR issue is a little different because their would not be additional harvest on the wild fish plus the fact that WSR (with exceptions) is the rule already. I don't think WDFW has to consult the tribes about removing fish from harvest. Those guys from WDFW last night are very careful when they talk about the tribes.

Jerry

What do either you or Todd think that the word "co-managers" means….from a legal stand point?

Since "Todd" is a co-board member and legal advisor of WSC, who had previously "accepted an appointment as an Assistant Attorney General with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office", where he also represented the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we would like to here his opinion on this issue. His work centered around tribal hunting and fishing rights, so shouldn't he be able to come up with some pretty quick answers and opines for both of you.?

I would like to hear from the WSC legal expert


Cowlitzfisherman

JG...you say WDFW does not have to consult with the tribes about taking fish away from harvest...that isn't so according to what Pat Patillo said last night...he said no more catch and release seasons without their approval and no more this season through 2005. You would think that the tribes would be all over the idea of catch and release because that means more fish for them but I guess they have other concerns about "allowing" catch and release fishing....maybe it has something to do with their inability to catch and release with gillnets.

Cow, I don,t know what the guidelines are for the Co-managing issue.
Grandpa---Because CNR fisheries have some kind of mortality it is a consumptive fishery and WDFW and the tribes disagree over the mortality rates in a CNR fishery.

Jerry this is what WDFW thinks co-managers means!

How tribes and state co-manage
salmon and steelhead

Washington's salmon and steelhead fisheries are managed cooperatively in a unique government-to-government relationship.

One government is the state of Washington. The other governments are Indian tribes whose rights were established in treaties signed with the federal government in the 1850s. In those treaties, the tribes agreed to allow the peaceful settlement of much of western Washington, and provided the land to do so, in exchange for their continued right to fish, gather shellfish, hunt and exercise other sovereign rights.

A 1974 federal (U.S. v. Washington) court case (decided by U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt) re-affirmed the tribe's rights to harvest salmon and steelhead and established them as co-managers of Washington fisheries.

Cooperation in salmon management

Each year, state and tribal representatives participate in two key public fish management processes. One is the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) process. This process sets annual fisheries in federal waters from three to 200 miles off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. State and tribal representatives sit on the PFMC and its technical committees. The PFMC manages groundfish as well as salmon fishing in the Pacific Ocean.

Parallel to the PFMC planning effort is the annual North of Falcon process which sets salmon fishing seasons for Indians and non-Indians in inland waters such as Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and state rivers. As with the PFMC, state and tribal fisheries experts participate in the North of Falcon process and sit on its technical committees. Those committees analyze technical information and use computer programs to set conservation goals for wild fish along with the state and tribal fisheries that focus on healthy runs of hatchery and wild salmon.

Tribal and state biologists also cooperate in analyzing the size of fish runs as salmon and steelhead migrate back to their native rivers and hatcheries. This so-called "in- season management" ensures sport, tribal, and non-Indian commercial fisheries are appropriate for the actual salmon returns and allow optimum numbers of fish to spawn.

Fisheries in the Columbia River and its tributaries also are co-managed by the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho as well as four treaty tribes and other tribes that traditionally have fished in those waters. The federal court continues to oversee the management of the Columbia River through the U.S. v. Oregon proceedings.

Cooperation in restoring fish habitat

Government-to-government fish management in Washington is much more than negotiating fisheries each year, however.

The state and tribes have been working closely to develop the scientific tools necessary to address one of the key reasons for the decline of Washington salmon stocks: loss and degradation of freshwater and estuarine habitats.

The state and tribes in 1992 produced the Salmon Stock Inventory (SaSI), a critical document for wild fish recovery. SaSI definitively identified the status of each wild stock in categories ranging from extinct to healthy, and provided a system to monitor their status. As habitat recovery efforts by the state, tribes and citizen groups shift into high gear, SaSI, currently being updated, will help ensure restoration efforts are working.

Besides SaSI, the state and tribes also collaborate with citizens on another key science-based research program essential to wild salmon recovery: the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP). SSHIAP is a computerized information system developed by the Washington department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the tribes and others to catalogue details about habitat and map fish stock distributions as well as stock status. SSHIAP, in conjunction with other tools, also enables scientists to estimate the number of wild salmon that can be produced in sections of rivers.

State and tribal biologists also are working cooperatively to develop comprehensive management plans for coho and chinook salmon, among the most prized species in the Northwest.

Cooperation in hatchery production

In the hatchery arena, the state, tribes and federal government have developed a fish and egg health policy that sets standards for all fish production facilities in the state. The policy requires testing of fish and eggs before transferring them to another hatchery or planting them in streams outside their native waters. This policy regulates approximately 40 tribal facilities and more than 100 state and federal hatcheries. It is designed to prevent the spread of diseases among salmon in the state.

The state and some tribes also are marking their hatchery-produced salmon by clipping their adipose fin, which is located on the back between the dorsal fin and tail. Clipping hatchery salmon will enable fishers to distinguish hatchery fish from wild ones, promoting wild fish conservation. Marking hatchery fish also will assist biologists as they try to manage some hatchery stocks from wild salmon in streams and rivers.

The tribes and state are cooperating in other areas as well. For example, the Skokomish Indian Tribe is working with WDFW to reintroduce native Olympia oysters to the southern end of Hood Canal. Rare Olympia oysters were collected from private beaches and spawned at WDFW's Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory. Young oysters produced at the state laboratory are being transferred to the tribe's Mason County reservation.

WDFW and treaty tribes also are developing management plans for Dungeness crabs, shrimp, clams and other shellfish, following a federal court decision that reaffirmed the tribes' treaty right to equal shares with non-Indians in harvesting these species in the areas in which they traditionally fished.

A living process

These examples demonstrate that co-management is an ongoing, evolving process. It's guiding principle is that much more can be done to strengthen, preserve and restore salmon and steelhead resources by working together in a cooperative manner.

Is this the commission's next game plan? It would appear that it is highly likely that the same commissioners who voted for the original moratorium would also attempt to cover there rears by implementing this RCW. Is this the Commission game plan Todd?

WDFW used it in 2000, for: "Reasons for this Finding: The harvestable number of wild-run steelhead (838 for Snohomish River system; 232 for Stillaguamish River system) is expected to be taken in the tribal and recreational fisheries by January 15, 2000, based on anticipated exploitation rates. This rule requires the release of wild steelhead after January 15, 2000. There is insufficient time to promulgate permanent rules."

But in this case, the escapement numbers do not fall short, so how will the Commission justify using their authority under RCW 34.05.350 on this issue?

"Under RCW 34.05.350 the agency for good cause finds that immediate adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that observing the time requirements of notice and opportunity to comment upon adoption of a permanent rule would be contrary to the public interest."


RCW 34.05.350
Emergency rules and amendments.
"(1) If an agency for good cause finds:

(a) That immediate adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that observing the time requirements of notice and opportunity to comment upon adoption of a permanent rule would be contrary to the public interest; or

(b) That state or federal law or federal rule or a federal deadline for state receipt of federal funds requires immediate adoption of a rule,

the agency may dispense with those requirements and adopt, amend, or repeal the rule on an emergency basis. The agency's finding and a concise statement of the reasons for its finding shall be incorporated in the order for adoption of the emergency rule or amendment filed with the office of the code reviser under RCW 34.05.380 and with the rules review committee.

(2) An emergency rule adopted under this section takes effect upon filing with the code reviser, unless a later date is specified in the order of adoption, and may not remain in effect for longer than one hundred twenty days after filing. Identical or substantially similar emergency rules may not be adopted in sequence unless conditions have changed or the agency has filed notice of its intent to adopt the rule as a permanent rule, and is actively undertaking the appropriate procedures to adopt the rule as a permanent rule. This section does not relieve any agency from compliance with any law requiring that its permanent rules be approved by designated persons or bodies before they become effective.

(3) Within seven days after the rule is adopted, any person may petition the governor requesting the immediate repeal of a rule adopted on an emergency basis by any department listed in RCW 43.17.010. Within seven days after submission of the petition, the governor shall either deny the petition in writing, stating his or her reasons for the denial, or order the immediate repeal of the rule. In ruling on the petition, the governor shall consider only whether the conditions in subsection (1) of this section were met such that adoption of the rule on an emergency basis was necessary. If the governor orders the repeal of the emergency rule, any sanction imposed based on that rule is void. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit adoption of any rule as a permanent rule.

(4) In adopting an emergency rule, the agency shall comply with *section 4 of this act or provide a written explanation for its failure to do so."


If the Commission does attempt to use this rule, can you or any other member please explain how it can meet the standard under; … rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare?


Cowlitzfisherman

Monday, March 15, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
Wild-steelhead ban irks anglers on Peninsula
By Paul Queary

The Associated Press
FORKS, Clallam County — This is a fish story, but not about the one that got away. It's about the fish you catch, and whether you should gently put them back in the river or take them home for dinner.

A sudden move by state regulators to ban killing wild steelhead in the rivers of the Olympic Peninsula has touched off a culture war. Many locals are seething. Forks' mayor is threatening to sue. Area merchants wonder whether fishermen will stay away if they can't take home a trophy. Indian tribes worry the ban will worsen resentment of their tribal fishing rights.

Wild-fish advocates, meanwhile, argue that it's time to protect some of the last healthy runs of a species prized by anglers around the world.
The steelhead — a variety of seagoing trout — is one of the world's most sought-after game fish. Notoriously choosy about which flies or lures they will take, the fish can offer a breathtaking fight once hooked.

"A lot of people put steelhead above all other fish," said Bob Leland, who manages steelhead for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. "For many people this is their religion."

But like Northwest salmon, steelhead have been hit hard in recent decades by habitat destruction and overfishing. Wild fish are listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act in much of the region. In the mid-1950s, sport fishermen took more than 60,000 wild steelhead in Washington. In 2003, that number was 3,554, according to the Wild Steelhead Coalition's review of state Fish and Wildlife data.

Hatchery-bred fish are still plentiful in many rivers, but native steelhead thrive in only a handful of streams, mostly on the remote Olympic Peninsula.

Even here, where sparse population and the protections of the Olympic National Park help preserve fish habitat, the wild runs are well below their historic heights. Conservationists fear a day when only hatchery fish — often scorned as "clones" by purists — will swim these rivers.

"We consider it a very risky management program to continue the basic harvest plans that we have on those rivers," said Dick Burge, a retired Fish and Wildlife official who is now the Wild Steelhead Coalition's vice president for conservation. "We need to be very conservation-oriented, assuring that we protect the fish first."

The coalition hopes to force a dramatic shift in the state's philosophy of managing fish to allow the maximum sustainable harvest. Burge argues that the current policy pushes the wild steelhead population too hard, leaving them vulnerable to natural disasters, such as ocean conditions, drought and silt-choked rivers. Meanwhile, closures on other rivers are pushing more and more anglers to the peninsula's streams.

So the coalition, well-versed in regulatory procedure, persuaded the state's Fish and Wildlife Commission to impose a two-year moratorium on killing wild steelhead anywhere in the state, a ban that will mostly affect the Olympic Peninsula.

The ban, set to take effect April 1 in the heart of the season for wild steelhead, has many locals up in arms. "We're talking about a decision made by a group of urban elitists who want the Olympic Peninsula as their playground," said Nedra Reed, the mayor of Forks, a beat-up timber town that looks to steelhead-related tourism to ease some of the economic pain caused by the dramatic logging cutbacks of a decade ago.

Reed is threatening to sue the state to overturn the ban, arguing that it was improperly railroaded through the process, conflicts with state law and isn't justified by science. She notes that even Fish and Wildlife's own biologists didn't recommend the move.

Leland, the Fish and Wildlife manager, said the wild-steelhead population could support the current rules, which allow keeping one fish per day for a total of five per year.
"The numbers are there to provide that kind of harvest," Leland said. "The fish are replacing themselves."

Peter Van Gytenbeek, the commissioner who proposed the ban, said he thinks Forks will prosper as wild-steelhead populations rebound and draw in affluent catch-and-release anglers from around the world.

"I feel terrible about the fact that these people feel so badly, but I absolutely feel that we're doing the right thing," Van Gytenbeek said.
Even locals who are neutral or in favor of the ban are rankled by being dictated to from hundreds of miles away.

"The biggest concern is the way it was done. They railroaded it through," said Bob Gooding, owner of Olympic Sporting Goods, who was chewing over the decision with fishing guide Mike Price in his store on a recent slow weekday.

But talk to anyone in town for more than a few minutes, and the topic will turn to tribal fishing rights. A 30-year-old court decision means about half the local steelhead harvest — both hatchery and wild — winds up in Quileute Indian Tribe nets. "With the tribes still netting the river, you're cutting off your little toe because your arm hurts," Gooding said.

Tribal officials are worried about the ban as well, in part because they think it might increase resentment among nontribal fishermen who can't keep fish even as Indian-caught wild-steelhead fillets rest on ice in upscale Seattle groceries.
Mel Moon, the tribe's director of natural resources, also worries that the ban might result in too many fish returning to spawn.

"Every system has a carrying capacity," Moon said. "How many fish can you put in the system before there's crowding? There's only so many places where the ideal conditions exist for spawning."

The decision has prompted vigorous debates in fishing shops and Internet forums where anglers congregate. Reed says she's been condemned as the "catch-and-kill queen." Pungent opinions run high and hot on either side.

"Sooner or later, the restrictions are going to be here," said Price, who's been fishing the local rivers for decades, and remembers when wild fish ran in the fall and early winter, not just in the spring. "They were big, beautiful fish. Those fish are gone."

But Gary Smith scoffed at the decision as he fished the Hoh River with two friends from nearby Sequim.

"It's stupid," Smith said. "It's a bunch of Seattle-area steelheaders that are uptight because their streams are closed and ours are open."