All, If you believe the two year moratorium is the right direction for declining wild steelhead, please take the time to get involved. The two year moratorium is the right thing to do, it will allow a time out and develop a real conservation management strategy for wild steelhead. Or we can continue to go down the road we have been taking, waiting until the "deemed" healthy rivers are not meeting escapement, close them down and look for next non existent place to fish for wild steelhead.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

June 25, 2004

Contact: Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2267

Fish and Wildlife Commission schedules hearing

on wild-steelhead retention moratorium


OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will hold a meeting Aug. 28 in Bremerton to hear public testimony on the statewide moratorium on wild steelhead retention enacted earlier this year.

The public hearing is scheduled from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Kitsap Conference Center, 100 Washington Ave., in Bremerton.

Commission Chair Will Roehl said the citizen panel scheduled the hearing after the City of Forks and hundreds of individual anglers asked that commissioners reconsider the two-year moratorium they adopted in February.

Roehl said the hearing will provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment on whether the moratorium on wild steelhead retention should be rescinded, amended or retained in its current form. Commissioners will consider those comments along with written testimony when they discuss the future of the wild-steelhead moratorium during a conference call Sept. 2, he said.

“Right now, all options are open,” Roehl said. “Given the amount of interest we’ve seen in this issue, we decided to open it back up for public discussion before considering any future actions.”

Roehl said the commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, has received hundreds of calls and letters – both pro and con – since adopting the moratorium on wild steelhead retention at its Feb. 6 meeting.

The moratorium, which took effect May 1 and runs through March 31, 2006, requires anglers to release any steelhead that is not marked as a hatchery fish by a missing adipose or ventral fin and a healed scar. Since retention of wild steelhead was already prohibited on most rivers in Washington, only about a dozen rivers – most of them on the Olympic Peninsula – were affected by the moratorium.

The commission will consider written comments on the statewide moratorium submitted through Aug. 26. Comments should be addressed to Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia WA 98501-1091 or sent via e-mail to commission@dfw.wa.gov

Back to the top-

Could not attend, but did send a letter in support.

I be there with BELLS on!

How did this manage to not be a 200 + post topic ????

Sorry, could not help myself... WSR, its the right thing.. what works in Idaho could work in Wa state also.. If you don't believe me , call Oregon and ask them.

B-Run, How about a letter to the Commission to let them know how well WSR as worked in your neck of the woods and how it hasn't hurt any of the small town economies in Idaho.

What good does it do especially since the Indians can put their Gilnets accross the mouth of a stream staggered in such a way that no fish could get past them if they wanted to anyway and the nets can't tell if it's a hatchery or wild fish.

B-run -
Aren't all wild steelhead in Idaho ESA listed? In my book that is not working?

Sorry, could not help myself.

Tight lines
S malma

That would be correct, ESA listed and increasing in numbers every year. They were almost gone at one point.

And not only are the numbers on the upswing for the ESA listed fish, WSR has made it possible to have yearly fisheries for the numerous runs of hatchery steelhead and salmon that make their way up the Snake, Clearwater, Grande Ronde, and other rivers over there.

Fish on...

Todd

I'll be there. Wonder if WDF&W wil release the latest steelhead return numbers prior to the hearing...

A very good question ctflyfish ... I'd be especially interested in what the final numbers from the Hoh this season were.

Anyone have any word on when these are supposed to be released?

I was thinking the same thing. I'll bet that the tribes love that. More fish for them....

The tribes are putting alot of pressure on WDFW and the Commission to lift the moritorium. It makes them look bad if they are the only ones harvesting wild steelhead.

Jerry, That is indeed an interesting fact, many complainers of tribal netting, if they are not, embracing the two year moratorium, should, here's an opportunity to make the tribes concerned about public opinion.

A wild steelhead moratorium on sport anglers for two years to give tribal members an inside lane at the grocery outlets to sell wild fish. Sounds like a subsidy program to me, I am in favor of the moratorium all together but would be ecstatic to see the tribal netters with their hand in the cookie jar and the blood on their front door steps when it comes time to answer questuions that I believe are covered up in responses of 2% honest traditional bs. What a bunch of molarky, thanks for gettin me fired up.

Mmmmmm. Cant wait to get the first wild steelhead a Safeway

Call me naive but I still can't believe the “Ban all nets” thing didn't pass a few years back. Question, What went wrong with that campaign? What can be done to end all netting in WA including tribal nets in all waters? I understand the argument against WSR when people are frustrated with the netting that does/will continue. I'm just wondering if there isn't something we can do to pool our voting power instead of divide it like I'm seeing with WSR. Attending this event is a good cause as far as I can tell but WSR will only be successful if the resource is left alone by everybody.

A.) Most steelhead caught by sport anglers are caught upstream of the tribal nets. Those fish have already made it.

B.) How does anyone expect to put pressure on the tribes to change their methods, if we don't make changes ourselves?

I can't make the meeting, but I got my letter in support of WSR off last night via email.

Banning the nets, what went wrong? Money is went wrong. Hard to compete against a very organized political group with money, when we as sports fishers are not organized and worse yet are fragmented on many issues. Organization and money is what gets initiatives passed, not a good idea. Sad, but true.

Anybody from south sound or Olympia area want to carpool? Email me.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Dear Chairman Roehl:

As public hearings for review of the recent steelhead moratorium are about to resume, we find it timely to reiterate the Quileute Tribe's position on this matter. We recognize that only the state's non-treaty share of the fish was subject to the moratorium. However, that does not mean the treaty share was unaffected by the FWC decision. Our concerns are as follows:

1) Without demonstrated need for conservation, it is entirely possible that returning fish could exceed carrying capacity for the rivers, thereby adversely impacting survival per spawners.

2) A mechanism for evaluation on the first point exists pursuant to Hoh v. Baldrige for Pacific rivers---they must be managed on a river by river and run by run basis. Yet, the Pacific tribes were not included in any discussion or consultation regarding the FWC decision to implement a moratorium. Omission of such consultation violates U.S. v. Washington, regarding co-management of the fishery.

3) Because we have no information leading us to believe the steelhead of the Quillayute watershed need to be in conservation status, we have not closed the tribal fishery. That situation, however, as you must be aware, has the potential to create racial tension towards tribes.

4) We note that even the WDFW staff did not find a need for the moratorium to be indicated. What then, was the motive, we must ask ourselves?

5) As citizens of the state of Washington, we are concerned that the lawful administrative process of the state was not followed by FWC when the moratorium was enacted; instead, it came by fiat of the Commission.

We are always concerned when state officials do not follow required process of state laws and federal court decisions. WE hope that the reopened hearings will rectify the immediate problem of an unsupported moratorium and that state and federal processes will be followed in the future.

The Quileute Tribe reserves the right to act as it may deem appropriate to protect its treaty rights to the steelhead fishery, in the future.

Sincerely,

Russell Woodruff, Chair
Quileute Tribal Council

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

In an earlier letter Billy Frank wrote:

It is our understanding that the FWC took this action despite recommendations to the contrary from WDFW staff, that you characterized it as a conservation regulation, despite the fact that WDFW and tribal staffs have clearly indicated it is not necessary for conservation, and despite the fact that we have agreed upon management plans which identify harvestable wild steelhead in a number of rivers.

This action by the FWC raises a number of issues regarding opportunity, allocation and conservation that we have been attempting to deal with over the years through annual, river specific plans without having to resort to the federal courts to resolve our different perspectives.

Try this one on...

"Without demonstrated need for conservation, it is entirely possible that returning fish could exceed carrying capacity for the rivers, thereby adversely impacting survival per spawners."

They sure haven't been complaining that the river has been so "over escaped" over the past several years...I'm sure the recent three year decline towards the escapement goal is giving them all a combined breath of relief as the river gets "healthier"...sure wouldn't want to have more than the escapement goal in there.

"A mechanism for evaluation on the first point exists pursuant to Hoh v. Baldrige for Pacific rivers---they must be managed on a river by river and run by run basis."

Look up the case...Hoh v. Baldridge says rivers can't be lumped together for the purpose of calculating "harvestable excesses"...which goes back to exactly what I was saying about cooperatively establishing escapements, run sizes, and harvestable portions. Don't rely on me or the Quileutes for the interpretation...check out the case...that's exactly what it says, in very plain english. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all like this moratorium.

"Yet, the Pacific tribes were not include in any discussion or consultation regarding the FWC decision to implement a moratorium. Omission of such consultation violates U.S. v. Washington, regarding co-management of the fishery."

Not if they are hinging their conclusion on the Hoh v. Baldridge case, or on the U.S. v. Washington case.

As noted, Hoh v. Baldridge says that rivers cannot be lumped together to calculate total harvest levels. In the case, WDFW lumped together all the OP streams, divided the number in half, and "gave" half the coho to the tribes, and half to the non-tribal fishermen. Under this calculation, while total fish caught from the OP would have been split evenly, the Hoh's would have got virtually nothing, as all the fish from the Hoh river were to be caught in non-tribal fisheries.

Also, as noted before, the exact language in the U.S. v. Washington case says that neither party can tell the other what to do with their half of the fish. It's called the "wisest and best use" doctrine...and explicitly limits harvest consultation to setting escapement goals, predictions of run size, and dividing up the difference.

As with the Hoh v. Baldridge case, don't take my or the Quileutes word for it, look them up...the copy/cut and paste masters should be able to get it done.

Then we get to the real reasons:

"Because we have no information leading us to believe the steelhead of the Quillayute watershed need to be in conservation status, we have not closed the tribal fishery. That situation, however, as you must be aware, has the potential to create racial tension towards tribes."

Playing the race card...but it's obvious what they mean is that people won't like it that they are the only ones harvesting the fish. "Racial tension" does not create some sort of consultation requirement under the cited cases. Again, look them up.

"What then, was the motive, we must ask ourselves?"

What they're saying here, is "if you don't care that we will suffer politically from being the only ones harvesting fish, then what reason other than racism must you have for doing it?" Which, of course, is the vilest kind of garbage. Accusing the state of being racist because they want to conserve the fish?

What they don't want is the political pressure of being the only ones harvesting the fish. Here, and on all the BB's, there have been discussions of what a great need there is to lessen the tribal impacts, and we all know that there aren't any ways to do it in the courts...they have a federally protected treaty right...this is the only way to do it. Where are all the guys bursting with anti-net sentiment now? Some of them, at least, are arguing out the other side of their mouth...

"As citizens of the state of Washington, we are concerned that the lawful administrative process of the state was not followed by FWC when the moratorium was enacted; instead, it came by fiat of the Commission."

True or not...it's irrelevant. It's going through all the most public channels possible right now.

Do you guys actually believe that the tribes would oppose the moratorium for any other reason except that they will receive bad PR?

I hope that the State is not blackmailed by these (thinly) veiled accusations of racisim, intended to fear them into knuckling under, and then we and tribes can go back to fighting each other for the fish...and they don't have the PR fiasco...

Fish on...

Todd

Interesting, does anyone else see the irony of this letter- Why should the tribes bully us in how we utilize OUR 50% of the resource. Does anyone really feel we would have say in how the tribes utilize theirs? Nice effort Plunk to cloud the issue.