Just had a long discussion with Bill Freeman ... head of Region 6 here in Washington ... in regard to the new regs, proposed regs, and fishing in general on the coast.
IN REGARD TO ADIPOSE FIN MEASUREMENTS:
Change can be seen at:
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/do/newreal/nov1799a.htm Bill stated that at the time of planting, some of the fish that spilled onto the ground and someone noticed they weren't all clipped. USFWS estimated that 44% of the fish were not clipped ... forgot to ask how they arrived at this number ... fuming too bad on my end. He claims that the state was just recently notified of this and the state did not want to take the risk of having these fish spawn with the wild fish, thus the measurement system. I asked how the 2 1/4 inch factor was decided upon and his reply was that this measurement factor was based upon creel studies done in the 1980's on the Quillayute system (as well as 2" height found on the Columbia system years ago ... but this wasn't the height they would use because of the inclusion of the smaller 'A' run fish on the Columbia). I mentioned that this would likely spell the demise of many of the smaller wild fish, and he responded that yes, this would likely occur, but the state feels that the river can handle the additional harvest (more on this later). I then brought up the issue of the amount of mortality that would now be seen with the type of fish handling that will now occur with a measurement reg in place. His response was that he hoped most people would be able to recognize the difference and that he felt most well-knowledged anglers would take care of the fish. I guarantee that we're going to see lots of fish come in the boat, get measured, and then tossed back in ... I liken to it to pulling crabs out of a pot or ring. Mortality will be extremely high as I guarantee you that there will fish after fish that will have to undergo this process ... I can see guides' clients demanding that the fish be measured, not to mention the amount that will be handled in this manner by private traffic. Bill went on to say that he hoped I was wrong and that I was a naysayer in this and it really shouldn't be a problem ... we'll see! I then brought the issue of smuggled fish in the C&R waters (as well as below 101) that would likely be taken because anglers can now keep a fish with an intact fin and won't think about a boat near them looking at the fins of the fish as they come in ... again, he said that he thought this shouldn't be an issue. I'm glad he's so trusting!!! To top everything off ... he actually said: "I personally don't care if people measure them or not, guys will know which are hatchery and which are wild." I about choked...
IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED WILD REG CHANGES:
Proposals can be seen at:
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/2000prop.pdf To start this off ... his quote "We have the healthiest steelhead runs in the world!" Yeah right ... that's why we have to plant all the rivers with hatchery fish to have an early component! Let's count hatchery fish as part of the health of the stock! Don't get me wrong ... I'm not a hatchery fish basher ... they do have their place, but they are NOT a substitute for wild fish in a system!! On the Hoh, Bill states that sporties are only taking 6% of the wild fish ... tribes 23% ... so there is more room for harvest. I brought up the fact that we've all faced emergency closures here in the last few years and that now is certainly not the time to be easing regs. His reply was that the state feels these closures were anomalies and they again feel there is more room for harvest. I asked how they could accurately judge escapement in the river due to the claying problem from about Owl Creek down. His response was that they rely upon tribal numbers that are gathered by fly-overs and floats way upstream ... and they try to estimate from that ... hmmm, let's roll the dice, shall we??? They can't even see the bottom in the lower 40% of the watershed! I then asked if they use the same system for determining the escapement numbers for the Hoh as they do for say the Quillayute system. His answer was yes; they are based on a common model used for all coastal streams. I brought up the fact that I found this somewhat incredulous as a watershed such as the Hoh is regularly subjected to covering / scouring of beds due to the very frequent shifting of the river bed. His response was that these events do not occur very often (excuse me???) and that eggs are pretty hearty and the fish would make it out of the gravel anyhow. Who is he trying to kid??? I mentioned that even in moderate high waters, the bed can shift a few hundred feet in places. His reply was that, well, you'll lose some spawning ground, but then you gain some too. Sure ... no question there ... but what about the beds that were already dug??? No direct response here ... just a run around saying that most of these fish spawn late when the higher water isn't as common. Maybe if we let a few more fish spawn early, we'd have more in the early timeframe. I mentioned that we caught wild winter post-spawners last December in there ... and the reply was that: sure that happens, but only a few. Okay I see, protect the late fish, but not the early fish ... lets make 'em just like hatchery fish, screw up their timing, and only have them present at the end of the season. We sure don't want to have wild fish returning in November and December like we USED to have in the Quillayute system. Bringing up the Quillayute system ... all he could talk about was healthy the run was and that we should be harvesting more fish. While I told him I didn't quite agree with that assessment, I confronted him with what proved to be an intriguing question: "Let's just assume that you're right and we have this surplus available, has the Department ever considered expanding opportunity without simply expanding how many fish someone could take home??" The answer was basically "What do you mean?" ... I explained: an example would be the South Fork of the Calawah which closes are Feb 28th. Why not allow this to remain open longer under a catch-and-release basis and whatever mortality was involved would be a portion of this supposed surplus? He answered: no, why? I explained to him that this would basically allow for more and better opportunities as it would give options in late season on those days the lower ends of the rivers were blown out ... this would in turn, allow a guide to work, allow the state to sell a license (assuming that the person already didn't have one), the local motel would have a guest, the restaurant and perhaps a gift shop or two might get some revenue from a visiting angler that would otherwise be told to stay home. Bill basically said that they had never looked at it quite that way ... I suggested that the state ought to start looking at things in such a light. I explained that despite the comment (in the Everett Herald) from our WONDERFUL (LOL) WDFW director that people won't fish if they can't harvest, that I didn't believe that to be true and explained to him how my prime steelhead dates book six months to a year out and I don't purposely kill a single fish on my boat. I also brought up my "Zipperlip" stream that has been C&R for years and how popular it has become for the fishing ... not the killing, and that I thought it was time for the state to start looking at things with a long-term goal including the economics of the towns that rely upon anglers. Bill noted this an interesting thought and that I should address my feelings to the commission. He did mention that he had personally considered opening this stretch of the Calawah under normal regs (due to the 'surplus') but he felt that the state shouldn't be making too drastic a change at one time ... he went on to say that doubling the limit and increasing the annual limit six-fold was "minor". I did try to find out where the suggestion for these proposed changes came from. Bill stated that they had some outside calls, but basically it was a Departmental decision.
Fishing in General ... but more specifically, king stocks on the coast.
I asked Bill if there was anything in the works for next fall's salmon regs here on the coastal rivers (Chehalis system northward). He said that there wasn't anything yet, but that they would start working on this with the Cape Falcon N. meetings next spring. I told him that the coho stocks seemed to be doing better, but that I was extremely concerned with the numbers of kings in the N. coastal rivers. He stated that the department has some concerns and will be addressing them. I then asked why we hadn't seen reg changes (reduction) for the sporties (or the tribes) this season in light of the huge influx of traffic that we knew was coming with closures around the Chehalis basin. He stated that they were working on this. I explained to him the regs I fish under in Alaska ... one per day, five annually for the region and no more than two out a few watersheds ... seemed to work just fine with the angling public there and that we perhaps ought to considering adopting the same sort of regs down here. "... To the commission", I was directed. I then asked why, if there has been some concern, the Quillayute tribe was allowed to fish five days a week this fall (they still are through Dec. 10)? He stated that the state had not agreed to this and felt the schedule was excessive and bordering on “illegality” … I asked why the state hadn’t fought it and he stated that the state felt it was not in their best interest to go to court right now and that it was best to allow it to happen, build a case, and then go to court. Given their past history, I’ll assume this will likely occur when we’ve got about a dozen spawning pairs left.
I’m saddened by the fact the state has such a lax attitude about the long-term viability and economics of the state’s fisheries. I personally feel that this fine line that we’ve been walking for so long in regard to the health of our stocks needs to be shifted over to favor the fish, not the fisherman. Below you’ll find some contact info to pass along your feelings:
Bill Freeman, Head of Region 6 … call him at (360) 249-4628
Evan Jacoby, Rules Coordinator, no email found, call at: (360) 902-2930 or mail in c/o WDFW 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, WA 98501-1091
The WDFW Commission … email at: commission@dfw.wa.gov call at: (360) 902-2267
Jeffrey Koenings, WDFW Director … email at: director@dfw.wa.gov call at: (360) 902-2234
Kelly Head … Commission Chair … Phone at: (509) 738-4790
Russ Cahill ... Vice Chair . . . Phone at: (360) 357-3929
Don Heinicke … Commission Member … Phone at: (509) 663-7373
Lisa Pelly … Commission Member … Phone at: (206) 842-0266
Will Roehl … Commission Member … Phone at: (360) 733-4640
Bob Tuck … Commission Member … Phone at: (509) 697-9317
No info found for Fred Shiosaki or R.P. “Van” Van Gytenbeek
Previous Topic
Index
