I'm not insinuating that she or anybody else is unfit to advise the Gov. I am simply trying to find out the background of this advisor? Bay wolf has shed some light to what seems to be going on. If you haven't noticed the rec. fishermen have been getting the shaft under this administration. Everyone has agenda's, open and hidden. Power brings out the worst of them. Agenda's are formulated from relationships, education, ethnicities, religion, upbringing, etc. If I was tribal and had the Gov. ear I surely would be pushing the agenda favoring tribal. If I had the Gov. ear I would be pushing rec. fishing. If you disagree, oh well, it's reality.

From 3rd party:
JT Austin

Experienced Senior Policy Advisor with a demonstrated history of working in the public policy industry. Skilled in Natural Resources Policy and Management; Conflict Transformation and Facilitation; Tribal Law, Policy and Relationships; Nonprofit Organizations; Policy Analysis; Politics; Legislative Process; Government; and Strategic Planning. Strong community and collaborative professional graduated from University of Washington and University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

From Governor's website: https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Policy_staff_portfolios_1-17-20_FINAL.pdf

JT AUSTIN – SR. POLICY ADVISOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
360.902.0638 JT.AUSTIN@GOV.WA.GOV
AGENCIES
Agriculture, Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of (Salmon)
Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
Natural Resources, Board of
Puget Sound Partnership
Recreation and Conservation Funding Office (Salmon)
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Washington State Conservation Commission
ISSUES
Aquatic Invasive Species
Columbia River BiOp
Columbia River Treaty Coordination
Co-management of Fisheries
Commodity Commissions
Conservation Districts
Culverts Case
Dams (Salmon)
Endangered Species
Fisheries Management
Forest Management & Forest Practices
Genetically Modified Organisms
Habitat Work Schedule
Irrigation
Natural Heritage Program
Natural Resource Management
North of Falcon
Orca Recovery
Puget Sound Recovery
Salmon Recovery and Protection
Treaty Rights at Risk
Tribal Hunting
Tribal Water Rights
Voluntary Stewardship Program
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife/Wolf Management
Working Natural Lands

What I have not seen is evidence of an education in resource management of any sort. I guess she must rely upon the Commission and their public meetings. She does attend those, right??? (don't miss the sarcasm)

I read all that. That tells me little other than a great resume was written. I have one of those. I'm looking for a little more private information, which I should be entitled to as a registered voter, and her being a public servant. Like where she grew up? Did she grow up in Washington State or DC? Has she ever recreated in WA? Does her experience come from studies or reality? I know the difference. Has she ever sportsfished? That kind of info is important on where her agenda lies and advice to the Gov. comes from. At least we know a little about Jon Snyder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Snyder , which was provided by Bay wolf. Like everyone, I am just looking for a little more information that could shed some light on what could be for recreational anglers, really important future political information.

From her LinkedIn page


Education

University of Washington
Bachelor's degree Anthropology
1990 – 1993

University of Pittsburgh
Doctor of Law - JD
1995 – 1998

If you want to know a little more about how far JT Austin's reach is in our fisheries, let's look at our last WDFW Commissioner appointments.


James (Jim) Anderson
(At-large position, Pierce County)
Occupation: Retired Administrator
Current Term: 07/24/2019 - 12/31/2024

James "Jim" R. Anderson was appointed to the Commission in July of 2019...He was the Executive Director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission from 1985 to 2005, before retiring in 2010...He is well connected to tribal communities and values the work they do and the roles they have played in our state. (WDFW Commisssion Member Web Site..click here)

Now, let's look at an email that JT Austin sent to Keith Swenson. Keith Swenson is the Director of Boards and Commissions. He is the one who is supposed to "select" applicants for the Governor to appoint to OUR WDFW Commission:

From: "Austin, JT (GOV)" Austin, Jennifer (GOV)93b>
Subject: F & W Commission Jim Anderson resume
Date: June 28, 2019 at 7:09:26 AM PDT
To: "Swenson, Keith (GOV)" Swenson, Keith (GOV)7d4>

Jim and I had a long talk yesterday. He would like to be considered for the F&W commission. He’s very committed to conservation, is an avid and lifetime hunter and fisher. He has two infractions, one in 2006 a boat where someone was over the limit on shrimp and one fail to record in 2007.

We talked about leadership, role modeling good behavior and professionalism, collaboration, treaty rights (entire professional career), passion about conservation, hunting and fishing, undergrad and grad degrees in environmental science, having practiced conservation and planning. We also talked about Curt Smitch, Tim and Norm - he said they’d had a falling out on mass marking but that was years ago and he’d survived norm and Tim’s “spittle.” He is highly regarded by Bob Turner, former regional manager for NOAA, Phil Anderson, Lorraine Loomis, and all of the 20 NW Indian Fisheries Commission tribes, and was close friends with Billy Frank, Jr.

I’m pretty impressed with his working knowledge of the various landscapes- fisheries management, legislative (state and fed), tribes, hunting stakeholders, ranchers, E Wa issues including water rights, impacts of population growth and climate change.

I think we would be proud of the appointment.

Let me know what you think and timeline. Also, please send me a phone number for Molly Linville when you get a chance.

Thanks and happy Friday.
JT

Now consider this. Andersen wasn't even a candidate. JT brought him to Keith Swenson's attention, LONG AFTER the announcement date had CLOSED! And LONG AFTER the Governor was, by policy supposed to appoint a replacement! And bypassed all the other highly qualified applicants that DID FOLLOW THE RULES!

Can you see that Anderson was "recruited"? Can you see he's there to insure the Governor's tribal agenda is pushed?

Jim Andersons resume was emailed to JT 26 minutes and 13 seconds before JT sent her email giving Swenson the "ol eye wink", that Anderson was the guy?

This is, beyond any shadow of doubt, irrefutable evidence and the "smoking gun" of an illegal and unethical violation of State law....along with the stakeholder's trust.

Those candidates who followed the formal procedure to apply for this vacancy on the WDFW Commission were sh!t canned in favor of an obviously political appointment--one who amounts to little more than an after thought, and hand-picked agent to swing the balance on the board of Commissioners.

No imagination is needed to conclude this act was corrupt and grossly inappropriate.

Larry Carpenter, as the current Chair of the Commission, the yoke falls on you to take formal exception to this injustice, and demand an inquiry and investigation as to what has taken place. The integrity and good standing of the Commission as a whole hangs in the balance.

My letter to Carpenter will be on its way later today, and the message will be as stated above. Read the Wolf's latest post, get a grasp of what has taken place, and please follow suit on your part.

The straw that broke the camel's back? Possible, and maybe even likely. But only if WE ALL come together with the same defiance that this WDFW incompetence and corruption and has gone far enough. Let Carpenter know your feelings...his e-mail can be easily referenced @ the WDFW website.

Some questions on Grays Harbor bag limits. The two fish bag limit is the traditional normal bag limit. Now the timing of the season can move around dependant on the harvestable numbers. Some years if we fish full bag early on the takes out the Nov & Dec fisheries. In general it has been accepted that time on the water is more important than a larger bag limit. So a Oct. 15 to Dec 31 one bag trumps Oct. 15 to Nov 15 two bag limit. You can even have a reduced bag on a particular stream if the returns cannot support a full bag. This can get a bit testy though as an example bay / tidal harvest is OK on these fish but then comes conservation on the inland fisheries. Thus far I think R-6 have navigated this OK but it will come around again as individual stream escapements are always an issue.

The bag limit can be greater if the numbers and GHMP sharing guidelines permit. Say Coho is way up, Chinook down, Chum normal. That would get you 3 fish bag of which only can be one Chum and release Chinook. So let us do Coho are above average, Chum way up, Chinook average. That gets you 3 bag limit of only two can be Coho release Chinook.

Then you look to the GHMP for such things as the 3/5 clause that limits harvest impacts to 5% of any salmon species that fails to make escapement. ( Humptulips natural Coho and Chehalis Chinook have been perennial restrictors ) Then you have the fact that WDFW manages the Hump and Chehalis separately but PFMC and the Nation manage to the aggregate of all Grays Harbor streams, which messes with the numbers. Now add to the mix the sharing with the Nation required by the courts. The Nation is entitled to 50% of the harvest of fish that enter Wash St waters. So the ocean catch by NT charters, Rec, trollers counts in the Non Treaty ( NT ) Grays Harbor sharing. Tribal ocean fisheries count against the Nations share. That is how you get the proposed two week shut down for inriver Rec and reduced bay fisheries. The aggregate Grays Harbor Coho escapement was not a issue only sharing with the Nation and as always Hump Coho.

As complex and confusing this all sounds it really is not. It is more like checking boxes which steer you to the next question. You could take 10 different sets of numbers for each species, work your way through the GHMP guidelines, tribal requirements, and end up with different Rec bag limits. Starting point for Rec fishers is 2 bag limit and then you add or subtract fish / species driven by the above mentioned requirements.

Follow the money...

Below is the WDFW response to my objections for the 2020 Fall Salmon season bag limits. The bag limit issue ( removing Chum ) has been resolved. Notice the two fish bag reduction is driven by Coho sharing with the Nation not escapement. I am not sure that I accept that 2 Chum in the bag would drastically increase the natural Coho mortality. Then again it is about aggregate vs Chehalis / Hump split and total number harvested which includes the ocean. ( W+H ) So in the Grays Harbor the Nation has a 3123 lead in Natural Coho but when W & H are combined the NT side is 1502 up. Then add that Chum impacts mostly occur on two streams Wynoochee and Satsop I can see why staff have that view. So there you are.


April 24, 2020

Via Email

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

Thank you for your comments during the April 16th meeting of the Grays Harbor Salmon Advisory Group and your follow-up emails from April 19th and April 22nd expressing your concerns regarding chum non-retention and increased bag limit for freshwater recreational fishers proposed for 2020 Grays Harbor salmon fisheries. After reviewing the model inputs, historical catch record card data, 2020 terminal runsize, and management objectives for chum salmon in the Grays Harbor watershed, Agency staff determined that there is sufficient harvestable fish available to not require the release of chum salmon in freshwater recreational fisheries during the months of November and December. This change will be reflected in the upcoming filing of the proposed 2020 Grays Harbor salmon fishery season.

As your letter states the forecasted terminal runsize of chum for Grays Harbor is 32,649 fish but it is important to note that the forecast for natural coho is 47,108 fish. As was discussed during public and advisory group meetings during the 2020 North of Falcon (NOF), the harvest of natural origin coho was constraining with regard to sharing between treaty and non-treaty fishers in order to comply with federal court orders. Given the forecasted abundance of natural origin coho in comparison to chum salmon, your proposal to increase the bag limit of chum would lead to additional encounters of natural origin coho. Cuts to season length or closure of tributary level systems within Grays Harbor would have to be made in order to make your proposal impact neutral to natural origin coho.

This is a good example of the advisory group process functioning in the manner that was envisioned during its creation. The North of Falcon process is fast paced and chaotic and it is very valuable to the Agency to have additional “sets of eyes” on the fishery models and proposals to help inform staff of issues that might have “fallen thru the cracks”. Thank you for your input and continued dedication to the resource and angling public.

Sincerely,


Ron Warren
Fish Policy Director

cc: Fish and Wildlife Commission
Kelly Susewind
Kelly Cunningham
Chad Herring

I don't have the numbers, as I wasn't regularly in rec planning, but what is important is the actual catch per angler. At least in the 80s, the actual catch per angler on any given day, across the fleet, was fairly low. Raising the limit only marginally increased actual dead fish in the boat as few anglers caught additional fish.

In my own experience, I know that if I wanted to retain chum, the limit mattered as there were lots that I could land. But my experience with riverine coho and chinook are that if I got one, it was a good day.

Maybe now there are fewer total anglers but those out there are better so that changing bag limits does significantly alter harvest.

Dave, if I am not mistaken, the bag limit will be 1 adult salmon (coho or chum)/day from Oct. 1-Dec 31 on the Satsop and Wynooche.

99 your correct. The shutdown window is Aug 15 to Oct. 1. Without getting into the weeds trying walk things out 2 Chum would come down mostly on the Nooch and Satsop. Those additional impacts on natural Coho would get us to close to escapement on natural Coho then transfer into the big picture on the basin. Kinda like a cascade effect.

All should keep in mind that PFMC and the Nation utilize Grays Harbor aggregate. The state breaks out not just Hump & Chehalis but by tributary leaving the inriver fisher most impacted by conservation and sharing standards.

Thanks Dave. I would guess that a lot of guys will favor one coho over one chum. Better eating quality for one thing. Most guys will wade through the chum to get a coho.

99 for the purpose of thinking through things lets try a Q&I. If you have 2 fish bag of which only one can be Coho, how many would fish on after getting a Coho? How many would turn loose a Coho to get 2 Chum? Looking to CM's post, what would the Coho encounter rate on natural Coho increase with 2 fish bag with Chum? How is this different than C&R on Chinook, bay and inriver? I could go on but I think the point is made. Within the numbers game in the model are assumptions built in on historical facts and staff perceptions. That WDFW uses more than one standard is true. Ocean, bay, and inriver mortalities are viewed differently as it just depends on who, where, and which staffer addresses the issue. We all have our views based on our experiences but in modeling assumptions perception has a tendency to be reguarded as reality.

Good post Dave. I think the answer to some of your questions is it would depend on the fisherman. Some guys prefer chum and some prefer coho. Personally, I am not that fond of chum. They are real fighters but I would rather keep one coho over two chum but that is just me. I wouldn't have a problem catching one coho and going home and not fishing on. But again that is just me.

That's where season setting gets so complex. When you can have a variety of species, which do you keep regardless of the paper limit. In my case, when waterfowl hunting I stop at one or two geese and maybe a duck or two. Don't need more. My salmon fishing is primarily C&R, so it really doesn't matter what the limit is. It would probably be very helpful if WDFW did a few years of intensive creel census on rivers, looking at what was kept, what was released, and what was targeted.

CM, good point. I remember a few years ago I fished the Satsop quite regularly and was checked quite a few times by a fish checker. Since then, I haven't seen one. It seemed to be only for one year that they did it.

I guess my question would be why would anyone choose a chum (Dog) over a chrome Coho or Chinook as part of any limit, unless that's all your allowed to keep? When I fished the Satsop, and that's been a long time, we used to find holes where they were not to avoid them. Great fight but not the best table fare. Some say they smoke great, but nothing compared to Coho or Chinook. Was always best to the have 1st push of fish on the Satsop be Kings and Coho and be done with the take before the Chum showed up. And then wait until they were gone for the "B" run.

The only chum I thought were really good were the Nisqually chum, being such a late run (Dec., Jan) poss. made them a firmer fish. Learned to smoke fish using that run of chum, but always kept the firmest for baking. Now that run is shot.