I'm new to this board, but am a member on several others....i became a member due to this very fact. I want to get a general concesus of each board and it's pulse to react to this bs.....what I gather is that we feel we need to join together as separate board/entities and flex our muscles for change for not only our benefit but more importantly, the fish! Let's not get bogged down in the minute details and differences, but FOCUS on what we want for the resource and fisheries. Tight lines, it's good to hear people with passion about what we love!

Well...today's news releases are out on the WDFW webpage...drum roll, please...

...nothing.

No mention of what's going on down there. Yesterday I was told that there would be a news release yesterday, nothing yesterday, and still nothing today. Can it take that long to make up some numbers and tell us all "it's gonna be all right"?

Fish on...

Todd

WDFW will make an official statement in the local paper (Daily World) tomorrow. Phil Anderson will refute that there is any problem at all and will point the blame at those who would attempt to undermine the co-management process (I guess that would be me, huh?) The reporter tried today to call someone from the tribe, but only got the runaround from one extension to the next. No official statement could be obtained. And as Todd said, no press release on the WDFW website to date.

Funny how this issue has been brewing since tUesday night and neither of the co-managers has the initiative to formally set the record straight in a transparent public medium.

Phil's version of the '04-05 run-size and catch expectations are pure fantasy.

Daily World article

He told the reporter that the run-size was forecast at roughly 24K with an escapment goal of 9K. That left 15K to be split among treaty and non-treaty fishers. His claim that the Quinaults are thousands of fish below their allowable catch of 7502 is a flat out lie! The run-size and allowable catch numbers he cites are grossly over-inflated.... not even Viagra can make things grow that big!

Here's an email from Phil that was posted by JJ on this board in January:

Look for more in the Daily World in the next few days.

Wow! Can't a guy leave home for a week without returning to fish management malfeasance?

It would help to have current and accurate information, but it's apparent our public servants aren't willing to share that in a timely manner so we can even fairly assess the situation. Why? What is there about public service they aren't understanding?

I feel like none of us is capable of getting Jeff Koening's attention in a constructive way. There is one party that can: the State Legislature. And we each have access to our Senators and Representatives. Perhaps we can influence the Senate Natural Resources Committee to call Jeff in for some Departmental accountability. Something along the lines of, "why should the Legislature fully fund WDFW if they aren't going to fully prosecute co-management of the public fishery resource on behalf of the non-treaty fishing constituents?" WDFW has options. The co-management agreement with the tribes that began in the 1980s has to have been predicated on the intention to equitably share the harvestable surplus of public fisheries (subject to treaty rights) at the 50% level. Any other interpretation would seem to be deriliction of duty.

It's true that WDFW can't tell the Quinaults or any other self-regulating tribe what to do. However, WDFW has access to the same courts that the tribes do, and for the same reasons, but this time perhaps with the shoe on the other foot.

Some have suggested not buying a 2005 fishing license. License fees are but a relatively small part of the WDFW budget, and the few that would not purchase licenses (remember, most license buyers go trout fishing, not salmon and steelhead) would have no influence on WDFW behavior. The Legislature approves 100% of WDFW's budget, and Koenings will be very responsive to funding cuts by the Legislature. That's the only place we can reach him, in my estimation.

Some have also suggested having the feds step in. Careful what you ask for, and fortunately, you ain't gonna' get it. Remember, the federal agencies are obligated to protect treaty fishing rights, but not necessarily yours. It's up to the state, and the state's recourse is the same federal court that has had continuing jurisdiction in this case for the last 30 years.

Failing that, UP THE REVOLUTION!

All that, and I'm a supporter of treaty Indian fishing rights, but I don't care much for abuse or inequity.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Your back!

Salmo g. wrote:

"I feel like none of us is capable of getting Jeff Koening's attention in a constructive way."

Hmmm...I'm thinking of one right now...

"There is one party that can: the State Legislature."

...and it's a different party than that one...

"Koenings will be very responsive to funding cuts by the Legislature. That's the only place we can reach him, in my estimation."

...I'm thinking of a different type of funding cut, rather than cutting WDFW's budget...

Cut his.

Time for Jeff to go...I'm sure there is an agency out there somewhere that is looking for a director who would like to funnel as many of the resources as possible into the commercial fishing industry...maybe he can go back to Alaska...somewhere where there are more fish than fishermen, where his style of resource extraction would work...well, it would work for a little while, and then everything would come crashing down there, too.

I hear that the Indonesian commercial fishermen need some help getting their industry back on line after the tsunami.

I think I've got their guy.

Barring that...there's always Burger King.

Time for a new Director, and new top brass...time for the Governor to take a firmer hand with the Commission, and time for the Commission to start being the independent policymaking body that is supposed to be, rather than the meek rubber stamp that it has become.

A few new Commissioners, an immediate motion to send Koenings packing...far...along with several others, most of which have "Deputy" or "Regional Director" on their office doors...and a directive to the Commission, from the Governor's Office for sure, and perhaps from the Legislature if it becomes necessary (it may already be) to DO YOUR DAMN JOBS and give policy guidance.

The next time Reg. 5 Commercial Fishing Mouthpieces Cindy LeFleur and Guy Norman come to the Commission and say "we want to triple the ESA impacts on listed steelhead", along with their biased, inaccurate, and policy-ridden Dog&Pony Show, send them home with directions to actually acquire the information that is necessary to make the decision, along with all the reasonable alternatives, and we'll tell you what to do...you don't tell us what you want to do, and nothing else.

Salmo, what do you thing of paid staff for the Commission who helps them to independently investigate the issues involved in making policy decisions, rather than the Commission having to get that information, very biased, only from the Department, and only what is in support of what the Department wants to do?

Sort of like a federal judge's team of law clerks?

Decisions shouldn't be based on "our science" vs. "their science"...they should be based on what the science IS.

Also, I agree that it is well nigh time that the state hold the tribes accountable for their duties and obligations under the Boldt Decision, too...they stand in our stead to do so, and they have completely dropped the ball, knuckling under to every demand by the tribes, and failing to keep the tribes within the guidelines that federal law does give them the right and duty to keep them within.

If the tribes aren't playing fair, then go into the federal courthouse and get an injunction to make them stop. Period.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

Oh yeah. I was looking for reaction. Actually, I thought of the alternative you mention, but I haven't had the confidence the CG or the Commission would do their parts. Maybe CG will put up. I'm concerned about getting informed Commissioners; considering the qualification requirements and that it's a voluntary position with much more work than it required years ago. Plus, there is the tradition in this state of the Commission being mostly a rubber stamp. But if it becomes the policy Commission that it oughta' be, then that would be truly hopeful - and opposed by commerical fishing and tribes.

As for info sources, crikey, that's what Region 5 is supposed to be doing for the Commission. The Commission ought not have to hire additional help to obtain unbiased, uncolored information so that they can make thier own independent policy decisions. We've seen how the Region forms its conclusion and then builds the artificial rationale for it. The Commissioners are mostly not trained to spot the situation that's laid out for them, hence the lack of pointed and direct questioning like you observed in Oregon. Maybe we can get there. That in itself is a worthwhile goal for all our sportfishing organizations.

Now, I'm going to the store and look for a Seattle paper, in search of good news.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

ok, so, if they, the state dont wanna remove the nets, lets go do it ourselves, ive never been to the chehalis, but, im in favor of yanking a net from a river in the name of steelhead survival..

I don't even know where to start on this one. I've been reading alot about this over the past week, but have stayed away from posting anything until today. There was a previous question to whether or not the tribes will still be netting the Chehalis after all of this? They are not only netting 5 days a week, they are netting 6. The nets go in Sunday at noon and are pulled out Friday at noon. So this leaves us only 1 whole day (Saturday) when the nets are not in the water. I understand that the nets are only in half days on Friday and Sunday but has anyone seen what kind of damage a net can do in half a day? Ecspecially if the tide is to their advantage. I imagine as along as nobody tells the river rapers to get their nets out, they will remain in the water. I've personally seen tribal gill nets in the lower Wishkah on an off day. So when they are not in the Chehalis look for them in the lower tribs. But even when you do come accross one, who do you call? What are they gonna do about it? On to some more information for you... I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Nooch fishery. I know lots of you fish it, but I don't know how well informed you are on it. Anyone one that has done the cross over to Black creek drift has been over the spillway. Right there is where water is taken from the Wynoochee and send underground to Lake Aberdeen. So in reality the water in Lake Aberdeen is really Wynoochee water. So down through the lake and down through the V. creek and into the Chehalis. The V. Creek runs right under the highway and right past the garbage dump. When you pass the garbage dump headed to Aberdeen you will go down into a big dip (Baily's dip) on the left hand side you will see an ugly looking slough. This is really V. Creek and is pretty much wynoochee water. Well that slough dumps into the mainstem Chehalis right by Lakeside. Next time you come into Aberdeen look down by the mouth of V. Creek and your guaranteed to see a tribal net choking off the mouth and above. The Lake Aberdeen hatchery is really your Wynoochee hatchery. All the hatchery steelhead in the Wynoochee come from Lake Aberdeen. The run is made up of half Wynoochee fish and half Vanwinkle stock. I am sure they are both Skamania stock to begin with though. I was talking with a good freind of mine that runs the Lake Aberdeen hatchery and we told me the the state is no longer planting V. creek because they get so many strays they don't need to plant it. So basically what I came up with is since the V. Creek is really Wynooche water a good majority of our hatchery Wynoochee fish are taking that left instead of the real Wynoochee. To make things worse is there is no real fishable water on V. Creek and the regs change year to year. I think it's open to summer run but not winter run or something like that. So the only people that get a shot at these fish are the tribes and the commercials. Unless of course you are fishing below Cosi for steelhead. I've seen it dont' though.
We need to find a huge meeting place and get all the boards and organizations together and get organized. I beleive with have the people, we've got the money, and we've got the tribes not exactly making them selves look good lately. Anyone know of anything like this taking place or in the proccess? I am down to help however, I might even be able to come up with a huge place to meet. (free) Anyways we've got to stick together on this one. we have to.

Harbor-Hog

FYI, if this is any indication of what's getting thru the nets, we're in big trouble.

The Bingham Creek Hatchery (Satsop) has only had 6 fish return to the trap!

Hope it's just a matter of the low water conditions. If they don't get a good shot of fish with this weeks rain, we've got ourselves a major problem!

Here's the link: (HINT.... you'll need to scroll down to page 18 of 28)

hatchery escapement report 2/23/05

FNP -
Just for comparison sake I took a look at the trap counts for 2004 (same web-site). The report for Bingham through 2/25/04 was 6 fish as well.

Was there a problem with the escapement last year? As you implied with the recent weather it may be premature to get too excited about the hatchery counts yet.

Tight lines
S malma

Last weeks report showed Bingham Cr. at 10 fish trapped with 8600 eggs taken. Last year at the same time there was 17 trapped with 25800 eggs taken. This year the skookumchuck has trapped 300 fish and taken 17400 eggs compared to 482 fish and 101700 eggs taken at the same time last year.

I hope this weeks numbers are better.