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."