City of Forks files steelhead petition
Posted on Tuesday 13 April @ 10:58:18

Late Friday, the City of Forks’ petition, requesting that WAC 232-12-619 be amended to allow for the retention of wild steelhead, was filed with the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and also the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The petition was filed by the City of Forks, Mayor Nedra Reed and Dan Leinan as petitioners and had the support of the Forks Chamber of Commerce, the King County Sports Council and the Cowlitz Plan for Restoration-Fish. Other individuals who supported the petition include John Kelly, Bob Reid, Prof. Steve Mathews (Ret.) and Ruby Swagerty.


The petition was filed under the Washington Administrative Procedures Act. It requests the department and the commission to consider amending the sports fishing rules for 2004-05, as well as any rule associated with the 2005-06 rule period, to reverse the recently adopted moratorium on the retention of wild steelhead. The moratorium was adopted on 6 Feb 2004 as part of the Wildlife Commission’s revision to the state’s sport fishing rules. Those rules were published in the state register on 7 April 2004 and will take effect on 1 May 2004. The winter wild steelhead season ends in late April for the rivers in and about Forks.
We informed the commission and the department that if the moratorium was not rescinded that we would utilize the means available to us to have it rescinded, noted Mayor Reed. We met with members of the department and the commission in early March, and while the start date of the moratorium was modified, the moratorium itself was not repealed. As a result, we have filed a petition asking that the harvest rules for wild steelhead be amended to read as they did in 2003-2004. We have six months before the start of the next winter wild steelhead season – so now is the time to truly assess the issue of wild steelhead management on the Olympic Peninsula.
Our petition addresses the issue of whether or not it can be demonstrated that the adopted rule was substantially different from that which was proposed in the written notice, continued Reed. I believe that we clearly demonstrated that difference in the petition we submitted on Friday.
Under the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, the commission has sixty days to respond to the city’s petition. As to next steps, we must wait for a determination of the department and/or the commission as to whether or not the proposal we put forward will be subject to rule making, Reed said. If our petition is denied, we may end up in the court room. My hope, however, is that the commission and the department will decide to open the issue of wild steelhead retention to a thorough public rule making process. We now just have to wait and see.

http://www.forksforum.com/article.php?si...cd0524278955c88

Todd, you've been saying all along now to put up or shut up. Looks like some people were listening.

"Can you hear me now?"


Hey CFM, are you smiling, just a little perhaps?

Get your buses warmed up. When this comes to a public hearing you will need them. Remember the proponents of WSR already have buses loaded with smelly, unwashed hordes of fly fishermen ready to go.

For what its worth..

Please keep in mind this is for WHAT IS BEST FOR THE FISH...not fishermen.

It is not "Us vs. Them". (Baitfishers vs. flyfishers etc.)

There has been so many opinions (both educated and uneducated) floating about these boards on this topic it is really tough for the non-biologist to make any determination on how they would vote.

If a choice will improve the resouce and still allow fishing then I am for it...but, even if we lost the right to fish for steelhead, I would vote for closures if that would help bring back the needed stocks.


Mike

It may not be an us vs. them affair in your mind but it sure the hell is in mine.

Yea Mike, its too bad so many people see it that way, but as you can see from Kerry's post it is a reality. I love fly fishing, bait fishing, gear fishing, jig fishing, bobber fishing you know I just like fishing.

Bruce,

My first post was another demonstration of my sick sense of humor. My second post was not. But before you go deciding that I think it is a matter of fly verses gear, let me say that is not what I meant. It is a matter of those that are against the recent moratorium on the harvest of wild steelhead and those that are for it. I am for it and I will assume by your posts you are against it. We stand on opposite sides of the line. Simple.

So Sad, My $.02, This whole issue isn't about triviality of who wins. It's a question of whether your an advocate for the future of the fish or for letting the fish continue slipping by the way side on your watch. Is the OP streams the "Manifest Destiny" of other Pacific NW streams? I guess some truely cannot see the forest for the trees, even when there are hatchery fish available for harvest.

WHY?

Why must this be an issue of ego's and conflict rather than considering the resource FIRST and what we want/don't want second?

Kerry: Passion is a great thing, but in this case it needs to be passion to save the resource, not get a "victory" over any group of people.

My personal opinion is that none of these efforts (Cnr/WSR etc.) will mean beans unless we get the Commercial and Tribal NETS out of the waters these fish inhabit, and the legal teeth to keep them out.

The legal wrangling and money spent over CNR/WSR could be money far better spent to get the Boldt Decision overturned/modified.

This will take a NATIONAL campaign and a lot of "awareness raising" amongst the non-fishing public before it can happen, but I firmly believe if we, as a ENTIRE GROUP place our efforts and resources towards this task it can happen.

I hate politics, and even more I hate wasted engergy on senseless debate.

Mike B

Double Haul,

You are right it is about being an advocate for the fish. I have no doubt that the majority of those that are against this moratorium consider themselves advocates for the fish and I won’t argue that. Again I say on this issue we are distinctly divided and in my mind it about those that are for this and those that are against it.

I am glad that there has been a request to review this. I hope it stands up to scrutiny. If it does, great. If it does not. I guess we try again.

I get tired of hearing the BS line that if you oppose the moratorium you are against the fish.

The fish never asked for a moratorium... The fools who think it will help the fish and the greedy people who want them for their selves did.

The science says you are wrong. C&R or WSR has never helped a steelhead population avoid the swings encountered by non-C&R regulated populations.

The whole thing is a crock... And worse the moratorium was illegally imposed.

If the WSC is for the fish and for the fishermen they will welcome the chance to address the issue in a public and open manner.

And for those who have been gloating over their illegal victory and challenging the masses who asked for justice with "bring it on" and crowing that "you're all talk and you ain't going to fight"... Here is a good recipe:

Sour Crow Casserole

Ingredients:
12 pieces of boneless crow breast halves
1 jar sauerkraut
6 slices of bacon
1/3 cup of chopped onions

Preparation:
Brown the crow breasts in a skillet with butter or oil. When browned, place them in a casserole dish on a thin layer of sauerkraut. Lay a 1/2 strip of bacon on each piece of crow and sprinkle with onion. Next, add another layer of sauerkraut and some of the juice. Bake at 350°F for 1 hour, lower the heat to 225°F and bake 1-1½ hours longer.

For Crock-of-Crow layer as above in a crock pot and cook 6-8 hours.

I would also like to thank the City of Forks, Mayor Nedra Reed, Dan Leinan, Rod Fleck, the Forks Chamber of Commerce, the King County Sports Council, the Cowlitz Plan for Restoration-Fish, John Kelly, Bob Reid (Cowlitzfisherman), Prof. Steve Mathews (Ret.), Ruby Swagerty and all the others who helped to address this breach of public trust.

We all appreciate your stepping up to the plate.

Ok.

So the law gets overturned because it was illegally made. You "win".

The wild steelhead decline continues in those river systems that are not doing well, including some rivers on the OP.

What do we do then. Close them entirely?

No matter what we as a State do...the Commercial and Tribal nets will still be in the waters.

Mike

The POINT is, now we can do something that unites fisherman and conservationists, and work to help the fish. I dont agree WSR was in the long term best interest of the fish. IMO, it only took away from addressing the real problems. It is(was) a bandaid at best, and I would even argue that point.

At least whatever happens from this point on will have to go through the propper public process. It will be qualified with science, not influence.

Best news I have heard all day, and if that is the result of all this hoopla then I would toss my hat in the ring as well for the review.

MB

Plunker,

Thank you. I always wondered what I was. Now, becuase of you I know. I guess name calling befits your obviously superior intelligence. I should have known better then to take up sides against the likes of you.

Us against them. Simple.

Kerry - Nothing has devided anglers like this C&R moratorium.

This issue needs to be publicly addressed with imput from all fishermen and other concerned parties. Not just fly fishermen!

No one knows which way the debate will go or what decision will be made after all the voices are heard but it WILL serve to bridge the division of the concerned parties.

If you have a problem with that then keep slinging tomatoes.

Kerry hit is right on the head. It is those that think the current system is working and those that don't. Those that want to preserve some angling opportunity for years to come and those that want to use as much of the resource right now and screw the future.

THIS ISN'T A MAGIC BULLET NO ONE EVER SAID IT WAS So get off that arguement. It is still allowing angling oppertunity while minimizing impact on the fish. Get more fish on the spawning beds ain't going to hurt right now.

The AG's office ruled this was done legally so get over the arguement that it was illegal. It wasn't. The WDFW reufuses to listen to the public and put it on as an issue so many people made their voices heard on it. All this was done open and in the public. I got my packet that showed how many people requested it how about you? Everyone was welcome to schedule meetings with the commissioners. Did you? No one ever kept this a secret.

Funny how the Department is getting 75% favorable to the moratorium responses. Wonder what the general public is wanting.

I know change is hard and for a lot of you there is no place for fishing if you can't put some fish on the bank and then put them on the BBQ. I enjoy the sport of it. I don't have to bring fish home to enjoy my day. Do I have an impact. Yes, Do I have less then a person that brings their 5 fish a year home, you bet I do as I don't get 100 steelhead a year. I am a fisherman and want to balance both angling opportunity with reducing impact. Status quo has gotten pretty darn old with the crashes in runs don't you think it is time to try something new.

I doubt there is hope for our fish right now as a lot of people can't see the forest for the trees.

Go ahead and hate me I don't care. Love me I don't care but the fish are hurting right now and I at least want to try to limit the impact while still allowing people to enjoy the experience. I know if you can't drag a fish home then what is the point.

Let's just open all waters up to wild harvest and screw the fish. Kill the river and keep pumping hatchery fish in so then everyone can just whack fish when they want.

off my soap box.

JJ

Plunker,

You were the one that started the name calling.

At what point did I make this a matter of fly vs. anybody? That seems to be something you want to promote. If you bring up my previous posts; make sure you read all of them thoroughly.

us vs. them. Simple.