YO PLUNK !!!!
How stupid are you and the rest of those bonking fools out there, don't you guys get it ?
That when you are killing the wild fish you are just destroying the future of the river, man you guys are so ****ed !!!!!
At least though you admit to killing nates, I ran into a couple of guides on the Clearwater that preach C & R But when I went over to say hi they had dead Nates in there box, just made me sick !!!!
And guess what, these prior meetings were open to the public, DUH !!!!
I was there and it was definateley in the opinion that This was the best thing for the fish, Not the fisherman. Now learn how to fish and kill hatchery fish !!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
Superfly

Considering the ramifications of the Commissions decision I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if the moratorium were rescinded and reconsidered through a public and legal process.

I hope that the WSC, FFF and Trout Unlimited will encourage the Commission to do just that. After all it is also in their best interest to see that any moratorium that is imposed is in accordance with the will of people it affects.

I personally believe that a blanket moratorium is not a good management practice. It sets a dangerous precedent for a continuing trend of lost fishing opportunity in areas where closures are not consistent with good management policy in the name of protecting another area where closures might be a good idea.

I also want to harvest wild steelhead from stocks strong enough to withstand harvest. I like eating steelhead and most of those I have eaten in the past have been of wild origin because the bulk of the fish in the Skagit where I fish are wild.

In times of low production like what we have been seeing in Puget Sound rivers, fishing closures specific to those areas makes better sense to me. By selectively managing each river system more specific management goals can be applied.

But whatever I believe is the right approach to blanket policies or whatever someone else believes, a rule that is formulated in accordance with legal procedures and with the input of all interested parties is a rule likely to be embraced by everyone.

The C&R zealots have been dividing the community for far too long and now is their chance to help reunite that community and, if they are right about the need for a C&R policy statewide, to get that policy mandated through an open, legal and public process.

For these reasons I ask everyone to support the petition. This is our chance to do what is right for the fishermen and what is right for the fish.

Here's a letter that was sent to the commission yesterday. Wow it looks like the Reps and Senators that signed this letter must be a bunch of Fish killing, Fish Bonking, Stupid Redneck Neanderthals just like the rest of us that some of you guys would like to make us out to be.

It's not looking good for all you Neanderthal hating folks out there!

-----------------
April 13, 2004

Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission

ATTN: Commission Members

600 Capital Way North

Olympia, WA 98501

Dear Members of the Commission:

We are writing to express our disapproval of the commission's action to institute a two year ban on the retention of wild steelhead on western Olympic Peninsula rivers. We believe the commission's action violated the Administrative Procedures Act, is unsupported by fish management science and is contrary to state law expressed in RCW 77.

This letter will clarify the relationship between the legislature and the commission and then explain the reasons for the opposition to the ban on wild steelhead retention.

RCW 77.04.012 defines the mandate of the department and commission when it states:

"The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish game fish and shellfish only at times or places or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the resource."

"The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens...."

RCW 77.04.013 further clarifies the legislature's intent saying:

"The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996, the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department."

"The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

RCW 77.04.055 sets out the duties of the commission:

"Commission - Duties, (1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:

(a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to those policies; and

(b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies.

The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations.

(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.

(3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.

(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.

(5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.

(6) The commission shall have the final approval authority for the department's budget proposals.

7) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission."

Conversations with commissioners reveal the commission believes it is a policy making body. This is not the case. The state constitution clearly gives the legislature the job of creating public policy. The commission has the job "In establishing policy to preserve, protect and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat" of meeting with the governor annually to review and provide basic goals and objectives; and to review the performance of the department in implementing those policies. Changes in policy direction are to be presented to the governor and the legislature for enactment into law. The commission has no ability to create its own policy and is limited to the role of a consultant in presenting new directions it feels the state should follow. Changes from existing legislative direction to those new directions are not to be pursued unless legislation is enacted giving the commission authority to implement the change.

With this in mind, the commission's decision to ban retention of wild steelhead for two years is a policy change made without legislative approval. In fact, legislators have consistently told the commission over a two year period that a rule of this type would be considered a policy change and further indicated that legislative approval would not be forthcoming unless WDFW fish management showed the runs were in trouble. Wild steelhead runs on the western Olympic Peninsula rivers are not endangered. According to WDFW and tribal biologists they are not impaired and are capable of supporting the limited retention called for in 2003-2004 fishing regulations. Therefore, the decision violates the legislative directive that the commission "SHALL" attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens..."

AND the commissions duty that it "shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations."

The commission's failure to consult coastal Indian tribal co-managers when considering the ban violates federal court requirements for co-management of the runs under US v Washington.

The commission's failure to provide adequate public notice that the rule would be considered is at least a violation of the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act if not an outright violation of RCW 77.04.130. It is also a violation of the public's intent for an open commission process as expressed in R-45 (RCW 77.04.013) that specifies "The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

The legislature spends a good deal of taxpayer money to employ wildlife managers at WDFW. The ban ignores the science presented by these managers and in doing so brings into question the commission's commitment to sound wildlife management. The legislature has also spent a great deal of money on salmon recovery. One must question why, if the commission is going to prevent fishers from retaining fish from healthy runs.

In conclusion, we feel the commission short circuited the legislative process when it adopted the rule. The rule should be rescinded and if the commission still believes it is necessary should be submitted to the legislature as request legislation in time for the 2005 Legislative session.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Reps who have signed: Buck, Sump, Blake, Schoesler, Pearson, Kessler, Orcutt, Armstrong, Hatfield, Hinkle

Senators who have signed: Sheldon, Morton, Hewitt, Hargrove, Doumit, Honeyford, McCaslin

No, their just vote whores.... To bad they want to please such a small amount of people. When it gets to a actual vote, they will go with the majority... and fish bonkers will lose... again

Please a small amount of people??? You need a dose of reality. There is far more than a SMALL amount of people upset about this and if it is not clear to you by now that what the commission did was wrong then I think you have tunnel vision. Its clear that some of you only want to see it your way and make cheap shots at anyone that does not agree with you.

The worm has turn...

Explain to me how removing the exceptions to a rule is making new policy. WSR has been the policy for awhile now they just removed the exceptions so that isn't making a new policy.

Second explain how this limits recreational fishing opportunity? It doesn't you can still fish.

There two main points are totally false.

JJ

This is exactly what I expected from Buck. 2 years ago when the commission almost instituted WSR, Buck floated a law to take all the rule changes away from the commission and give it to a legislative committee. This basically was a threat by Buck. I believe before Buck floated the threat the votes were there in the commission to have instituted WSR 2 years ago. So there is your backdoor manuvering.

Is the process still working Jerry/JJ?

You mentioned Buck, what about all the other Reps and SENTATORS that signed it? Can so many people really be that wrong? Are all the WA State Anglers, Reps, legislators, City Mayors, Attorneys, business etc etc etc really be so blind and dumb? Just maybe, now I know its a grasping at straws, but could it be possible that some of these people really are right? I mean holy cow! We now have a letter signed by lots of Senators and Reps that points out exactly what RCW's were violated.

Where's Todd?

Actually, Bruce, what we have is a list of RCW's, and legislators saying they were violated, a lot like CFM's earlier posts where he cut and pasted pages of RCW's and said "See! I told you it was illegal!", without any analysis of how it was illegal.

If I have time in a little while I'll go through the letter and give it its due...though, frankly, in the initial 1000 post thread, every one of those RCW's was alleged as being broken, and no one could actually show how. Now I know that the legislators are probably better at that kind of stuff, since they work on laws every day, but they didn't do anything in that letter beyond alleging that RCW's were broken, which doesn't cut it.

More on the letter later, time permitting...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I just finished a long post on the "Dams, Salmon, and We, the People" thread...I think my subject matter would apply here just as well as it did there...

"Actually, Bruce, what we have is a list of RCW's, and legislators saying they were violated."

Ok Todd. I agree. Thats what their saying.

Now I suppose the Reps and Senators are wrong also....? Don't they make the laws or something like that?

For weeks now you have been very very quick to jump on the "put up or shut" bandwagon. You've been very quick to respond/reply to any opposition to WSC, the process and this ruling. I look forward to reading your response regarding the above letter also.

Process definately still working. Back room lobbying going right now for sure. Are you against that too?

Still waiting to know how this limits fishing opportunity? THey aren't saying you can't fish.

JJ

"AllStar Rods Prostaff
Vision Hooks and Tackle Prostaff
Thor-Built Boats Prostaff"

I need to make a note of that. Never support, promote or buy those products.

Well, I wouldn't call them experts, either. How many laws get passed every session before being struck down in the courts for one reason or another?

If the proper procedures weren't used in order to put the rule in effect......then they should have been. If the RCW's were danced around, then it hurts us all.......maybe not this time, but eventually.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what shakes out.

I'll say this again Bruce. I hope to hell I'm wrong that steelhead are in danger. Nothing would please me more than to be able to have people harvest the hell out of the wild steelhead and still have the fish populations increase. What is your fallback position Buce if you are wrong?

Jerry when I feel that over harvest by sport fisherman becomes a problem, then I may choose to aggressivly address that issue at that time.

"Quote from Smalma:"

WSR regulations only aid in the rebuilding of stocks when over fishing is the major cause of the population decline.

Problem is Bruce when you notice the decline it's to late. Reference the Sky, Stilly ETC.

Ooooh, they're Senators and Reps .. that means they know a lot about these fisheries :rolleyes:

Hell, the city attorney here in Forks during our long discussion regarding this matter couldn't even answer the basic question asked of him regarding major life cycle differences between salmon and steelhead. His answer was along the lines of: they come back every four years don't they?

There's a reason that there's a Commission and fish / game laws are not made by legislators.

Will said Bob

The only BIG loser in this is the WILD STEELHEAD!

Has been and always will be!

Plunker-

Since you live on a river that is basically on it's knees, and one that you can't legally harvest wild steelhead anymore, do you know why the run declined to this point? And can you scientifically prove it? (I don't want WDFW answers here as they are only around for one reason- To manage harvest allotment and nothing else.) Bruce???

To the vocal minority of Pro-kill that is constantly defending their position on this board-

The fish runs on the OP are in decline. Can you show that the #'s of wild steelhead in '04 are anything comparable to 100 years ago? Look at the two most common reasons given, from your own arguments, for the decline: Harvest and Habitat.

Native American harvest, and the Bolt decision, is the biggest complaint usually voiced here. Is this the true cause of the declining fish #'s over the past century? Or is it part of the problem? Where does sport harvest play into this equation, set at 50% of the harvestable "surplus"? What about the hatchery fish and their genetic pollution of the wild stocks? Any ideas on how much this might be contributing to the collapse of the early returning component? What is the quickest fix WE can apply to the resource to help slow, stop, or reverse the decline? WSR

Habitat. Damaged habitat. Is this the true cause of the decline? And if it is the largest contributor to the problem, why are you not spending all of your time, $$$, and energy (the energy and time spent arguing on a BB that could be applied towards the REAL, according to your own arguments, problem? If the habitat issues were FIXED would the issue of WSR be the hourly theme on this BB?

And to those that feel we should just close the rivers cause if they ain't healthy enough to killem then they ain't healthy enough to be harrassed.

I voluntarily choose to limit my effectiveness and I voluntarily choose to release wild salmonids. The methods I practice have been scientifically shown to result in 2% mortality on angled steelhead. That means if I were to fish 100 days over the winter/spring season and be blessed enough to positively identify 30 HOOKED steelhead my KILL rate is going to be .6 fish. And if I use barbless short shank #4 hooks I can pretty much guarantee that the kill rate is going to be even less. A competent baitfisherman can hook that many fish on a couple of good weekends with a much, much, much higher mortality rate (approaching 10%). You do the math on who is going to impact the population more.

I am not arguing that fishing is not a blood sport because it is. I also find no remorse in 'torturing' a wild creature only to let it go where it is going to survive 98% of the time to finish its job. I can live with those odds. I choose to CONSERVE my harvest allotment for the least amount of impact to the resource.

But I do grow tired of the 'red herring' argument tactics. The truth is that if sport harvest is reduced to the LOWEST possible # there will be more fish making it to the redds. How can that be wrong? This whole pro kill argument being vehemently defended here just comes across as "You are not going to tell me what to do" rather than look to the future and what COULD be.

And for those, even the biologists that participate, here is quote that pretty much sums up my feeling towards conservation FIRST:

"Not only are ecosystems more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think".

William

Couldn't have put it better myself Joe!