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