Okay everybody, make your plans to go down to Vancouver on Saturday, December 11. The hearings open at 8:30 and changes to the Sportfishing Regulations are the fourth item on the agenda for Saturday morning. Open public input will be allowed, starting at 8:30, for those who can't be there later in the day. Sportfishing Regulation changes will probably come up sometime before the lunch break, but it won't hurt to be there early. If you can't be there (or even if you can) write to rules coordinator Evan Jacoby, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia,WA 98501-1091. Let 'em know how you feel.

Thanks Preston for the info ... there will be a contingent of memebers from the Olympic Peninsula Guides' Association there ... I will also try to make it myself.

In addition, I'll be working with a couple of other guides Wednesday night to draft up the Association's formal opposition letter ... if anyone has any input as to why these proposals should NOT go through ... post it here.

We've got plenty of ideas of what we're going to address, but I figure a few hundred minds might be able to adda thing or two that the three of us can't come up with. Thanks in advance for you help guys!!!

bob, the hoh river proposals are imo indefensible. the river has been closed early 3 of the last 4 years... and i've been told has only exceeded escapement 1 time since 1990. that seems pretty clear cut for not increasing harvest. as for the proposal to do away with the selective fishery waters upstream of the 101 bridge, i know this may be a tough one because i know you and many of the guides wouldn't mind fishing bait in that stretch, but if you choose to fight that in your letter, remind the department that the river's dolly varden/bull trout have just been listed as threatened on the esa. imo, that's a pretty strong reason to keep the current regs in place.

as for the quillayute, i just don't trust the state's numbers... both their escapement goals and their escapement numbers. but the department probably doesn't want to hear one questioning their numbers <G>. one thing i think is that the state really isn't plugging in c&r mortality into their harvest numbers, and if they are, where are they getting their info. i don't see many creel checkers asking how many fish were caught and released, especially in the areas closed to harvest. i might also add that the poaching numbers aren't being plugged into their harvest numbers. i got a chance to see last years preliminary harvest numbers on the quillayute. they said only 403 wild steelhead were taken out of the bogachiel, 103 out of the quillayute, 144 out of the calawah, and roughly 700 out of the sol duc. i'm not sure these figures reflect reality, and certainly don't account for the poaching that is going on out there.

of course, the argument that quality fisheries have value and that more fish is a good thing, not a management failure is a good one. good luck on the letter, today i'm getting a bunch of postcards made up so people can just sign and send a simple statement in opposition to these proposals. i hope to get all 200 of the postcards i'm getting printed to be signed. if you think you can get some signed in your area, please e-mail me.

good luck, and maybe i'll see you in vancouver.

chris

Maybe some of the area's Chambers of Commerce would back you. Postcards, or a petition signed by owners of motels, stores, gas stations, etc.. A handful of people could hit quite a few businesses in a couple of days. Screening them first through phone calls might be the most efficient way.

BTW, I believe the rules Bob is talking about are discussed in the "North Coastal Streams Rules Changes" and "New Regulations on the Hoh" topics on this board.

Maybe you can somehow argue that the more liberal rules would cause more fish to be kept at the begining of the season, and that would be detrimental to the earliest runs of Steelhead (which I believe, from reading this board, are the most decimated runs).

[This message has been edited by AkBill (edited 12-01-1999).]

[This message has been edited by AkBill (edited 12-01-1999).]

C'mon guys, Bob asked for some ideas. I know there's more of you out there that have the cajones not to worry if your ideas might sound stupid or that you might just be stating the obvious. I do it all the time.

Bob, I've already sent a letter off opposing the new proposal, however, I did not mention anything about keeping the current selective fishery area intact on the upper Hoh. I think it's really important to keep the selective area above 101. You might include that in your input if you haven't already.

Thanks for the input fellas ... we have gone to the Chamber of Commerce and it appears they will be sending a letter off to the Commission ... the continued health of the stocks is important to many local businesses and they will hopefully emphasize that point.

Just one more point to remind WDFW: Director Koenings recently stated in one of his policy statements or speeches that if in doubt, the dept would "err on the side of conservation!" This is the perfect time for him (and the Commission) to keep that promise!