Salmontackler- Responding to your suggestion in my "C&R Debate Needs This Biologist's Report" post thread, I sent the following letter to the posted e-mail address of commision@dwf.wa.gov & to commission@dwf.wa.gov and had it returned "host unknown" undelivered. I will post the letter here. If anyone can forward it to the appropriate fisheries management e-mail address it would be very appreciated. I also urge that we all send in our comments, when someone posts the correct e-mail address- then watch what happens in response to numbers! ----- Dear WDFW/Commision: I believe that angler's/voters in Washington state are on the threshhold of an uprising of organized fishermen with the resolve to see thru to conclusion the enactment of improved state fisheries management, regulations, and lawful enforcement of such. And where necessary, vote in cleanhouse leadership in this time of dwindling stocks of this state's anadromous fish runs.- para- At the heart of this issue are Reg.'s that still permit the sportfishing harvest of native Steelhead in some of this state's watersheds. Given the documentation of the general decline of these precious and irreplacable fish, there is simply NO justification to allow continued harvest of any of these fish, even in limited managed numbers! What in the world is going on within the circle of Washington state fish managers that set these Reg.'s? They must by now have learned something over recent years about these declines all over the N.W. And that allowing continued harvest of native Steelhead will not only hurt their chances for future survival, but also continue to send out a very poor image of the state of affairs within the afforementioned circle of decision makers in Washington!- para- Please remember that the states of Oregon and Idaho, as well as British Columbia, have "done the right thing" in recent years by no longer allowing any harvest of native Steelhead. This is not only proper management, but has been very well accepted by the majority of fishermen. The state of Oregon has been a particularly good example of both proper fishing Reg. management and broad specturm resourse user group cooperation to improve natural spawning habitat for anadromous fish runs. This was instituted by Governor John Kitzhaber as the Oregon Salmon Plan. It has brought unprecedented unity within the state, and along with C&R Reg.'s for native Steelhead and the fin-clipping of all harchery raised Steelhead for managed harvest, has warded off the onset of the Federal Endangered Species Act which has the potential to halt much of the state's fishing opportunity. Similar Reg.'s and policies are now planned for Oregon's Spring Chinook salmon. Included is public education on proper fish release techniques.- para- What is going to be the response by the lag behind, foresight lacking, fisheries management in Washington? Please internent access www.piscatorialpursuits.com to learn of a credible slice of this state's angler attitude and resolve for proper change (click on Salmon & Steelhead Forums and form there click on the Salmon & Steelhead Bulletin Board). Take particular note of two subject headings to click on and read thru; "Washington Angler's Alliance" and "C&R Debate Needs This Biologist's Report". Like with any public forum, you will have to skim thru a few shallow name calling type posts, but there are many very good feedback posts on the subject of your management positions. It will be more than good public relations to respond back, addressing the concerns of the thousands of readers here (and elsewhere)- it may also help save your jobs in the not too distant future!- para- Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Steve Hanson (ReelTruth1@aol.com)




[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 04-06-2000).]

Reel,
Here is the problem as I see and understand it. WDFW is not in the lead on this harvest issue the tribes are...and they want to fish. If one half of the "management team" wants to fish the other half must. If the other half does not want to fish then there is a foregone opportunity issue which can allow the fishing half 100% of the harvestable fish. Catch and Release will kill fish, how many is just a matter of "paper" fish because it doesn't matter in the negotiation process. Catch and Release by recreational fisherman keeps the tibal nets at their "fifty percent" figure. It would be so nice and simple if we could just say...OK, we just won't fish...but that doesn't work unless it is an emergency closure. And the usual way that we get an emergency closure is if the tribal nets aren't getting their customary catch at the customary time. The indicator is their net catch numbers.

Not as simple as Oregon, I wish it were.

Thanks,

Jim

hey reeltruth, i just sent a email off to somebody from the wash state u, called doctor universe. suppose to be able to answer any question. we i asked fot\r the coorect email for the department of fish/wildlife and land management. hopefully sometime today i will get and email and then post up the correct address's.

elmtree

Reeltruth,

There's a typo in your email address, it should be: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Your message had it as: commission@dwf.wa.gov

Maybe this was the problem?


Fish on.........

Dan S., posted the correct address above.

Jim Bain, I am not sure what to think of your post. Doesn't the commsision set the regulations for the sportfisherman? I get the sense that your attitude is "If the tribes are killing wild fish, why shouldn't the sportman". Please correct me if I am wrong.

commission@dfw.wa.gov

[This message has been edited by salmontackler (edited 04-06-2000).]

Nope, not my attitude at all Salmon, it is just when their are fish on the negotiating table they get split, creating some type of fishing opportunity for all.

Some very exciting options being tested this year to save wilds!! Can't wait to see the results!

Jim

Jim Bain: Whoa!! The Indians are setting sportfishing Reg.s?? In regards to sportfishing harvest of nates? I DON'T THINK SO! And stopping the sport harvest of nates statewide, as in Oregon, will NOT increase the 50% share quota of the tribes! Furthermore, valid C&R mortality stats certainly DO matter in any negotiation/Reg. setting scenario! Is this the same Jim Bain that is attempting to unit Wash. anglers to support proper fishing causes?- If you will reread my letter, notice that it did not address the Indian netting issue per say. What it did address to the ODWF/Commission is the intense issue on this BB about allowing non-Indian sportfishermen to still harvest native Steelhead in some Washington watersheds. Whether or not the Indian netting issue can be changed someday is irrelivent to the above issue addressed. I don't understand why you brought that into the equation along with a tone of pessimism toward other fishermen's good suggestions of a write in campiagn for positive change to the status quo mismanagement! I believe this to be counter to your purported position in regards to the proposed Wash. Angler's Alliance.- Fishermen, don't be divided by misjudgement or misunderstanding here. Reread my letter and SalmonW.'s and all posts in "C&R Debate Needs This Biologist's Report". Due to Jim's post, I must now redouble urging for good numbers of you that care about the survival of native Steelhead for the future to write into commission@dfw.wa.gov with your comments and support for the above. Thanks. Steve

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 04-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 04-06-2000).]

What in the hell is up with you Jim Bain??? Why would you risk undermining a good cause write-in campaign by Salmontackler & Reel Truth. Is it just ineptness, or is it more personal in that you may percieve RT as a threat to your self image as some kind of fish cause headhoncho? ..shtick it

[This message has been edited by Fishtick (edited 04-06-2000).]

Ok, my first mistake in this thread was not understanding that this was an attempted write in campaign, I read it more as a series of questions looking for explanations. I am sorry for that. We have in place as a statewide law that says: Wild Steelhead may not be kept; only hatchery steelhead may be kept. Hatchery steelhead........pg 11 WDFW regulation pamphlet. So...obviously WDFW biologist and commissioners sidestep this law somehow...I do not at this point know how they do that and any enlightenment here will help.
The tribes do have a huge impact on setting seasons far greater than we would like to think, hopefully the winds of change are beginning to blow here with a viable way for them to selectively fish. That is a broad stroke statement but I am hopeful.

The big reason why these "extra" seasons on nates are set in my understanding is that via net catch indicators...certain runs are updated as stronger than expected. I believe wholeheartedly that the floor numbers that are used to determine escapement are way to low. I have said numerous times in the past in relationship to this,that it is this "science" that has gotten us where we are at today...not all by itself but it has been a determining factor.

As for the head honcho statement...I have no problem with someone stepping in and taking over, in fact I am sure I am not the guy for the long term job. But I am the guy that had this dream to see this happen. I answer now close to 50 emails a day, that takes a huge amount of my time but at this time I feel it is important to let everybody know that I appreciate their support. Some incredible people have come on board and I am excited for the possibilities. I am sorry for the confusion, I hope what I have written here helps to clear things up. I may have missed some points along the way here since I can't keep looking at the posts as I write this. But it is my intention to answer whatever questions there may be.

Sincerely,

Jim Bain

Hey guys, does the Boldt decision apply in Oregon? I always thought that it did. I guess maybe Indians in Wa. are greedier then those in Or. Sucks that Indians are guarranteed 50% cuz if the other 50% of harvestable numbers arent taken supposedly they can call "forgone opportunity" and take even more fish. Jim you are totally right in trying to get the "harvestable number" lowered. It allways seemed to me that the "model" for said numbers can change after the season was over (floods, slides, and the like) how can it be figured? Jim, I have nothing but respect for what you are trying to do and am glad you have "thick skin". I think fishdick was out of line with you. C

I appologize for coming on too strong with you Mr. Bain. I appreciate your comeback explaination. I didn't stop to think about the amount of work you're doing, and it is appreciated. And I don't know where I came up with the idea you could feel threatened by other activists. There is no indication that anyone is trying to supercede your good intention efforts. As with many on here, I need to think before pounding the keys! I hope you will give your support to the worthy efforts of Salmontackler and Reeltruth, as site moderator Bob Ball has within the "C&R Debate Needs This Biologist's Report" post. Thanks, ..shtick

Jim Bain: The page 11 wild steelhead note is just a "definition" of what is meant when the regs for certain rivers say "wild steelhead release." Wish it were "law" but it only applies in some systems.

Scaly,
I didn't call it law until I made a phone call to WDFW and they told me it was...I actually called while I was typing that post. However it has bugged me all weekend so today I will try to give the office of Evan Jacoby a call and get it squared away.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, when you call the WDWF will you ask them why they didn't respond to my open letter on this BB & also sent directly to them several days ago (long distance for me & with their mentality don't want them to know I reside in Oregon & thus a none voter in their eyes- even though I'm a lic. Wash. angler).- I just sent an e-mail over the weekend to ODWF about the consensus opinions on our web. BB concerning Searun Cutthroat Reg.'s. Got a good response just a couple of hours ago. What an unfortunate PR mistake the WDWF makes- similar to their reg. mistakes. - Steve

Hey everyone....law clarification...clear as mud.

First off Steve, WDFW is infamous for poor communication and as far as PR...not a priority for them. There is one gal out of the Vancouver office that works hard at digging out answers...she is spending most of her time in the field right now...If you would like to email her....email me and I will get that for you.

Now the law regarding Wild Steelhead Release...and it is a law that WDFW/Commission can by pass in the case of "extemely strong" (their words not mine) Wild stocks. Out of curiosity I looked through the pamphlet and picked out all the rivers and creeks that have "extremely strong" wild runs of steelhead. Your opinions are welcomed. Here we go with the list:
Big River
Bogachiel River
Calawah River
Canyon Creek
Carbon River
Cedar Creek
Fisher Slough
Goodman Creek
Green (Duwamish)
Hoh River
Hoko River
Kalaloch Creek
Mosquito Creek
Puyallup River
Quinault River
Salmon River
Skagit River
Skykomish River
Sillaguamish River
Tokul Creek
Whatcom Creek

There is the list of extremely strong wild stocks of steelhead taken from the 1999 Sportfishing Rules pamphlet.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, I would bet my favorite fishing rod and the contents of my tackle box that there are several, if not all, of the above named watersheds (included are creeks yet!) that very doubtfully have extremely strong runs of native stelhead! What data base do they use for those contentions?? We as sportfishermen have to rely on everyone's credible and expressed years of observations to reach a strong consensus counter to theirs. And for sake of argument, lets say those streams have healthy runs of nates- should we then be allowed to harvest decline those runs until they are depleted like the vast majority of other streams have become; or has there been any LESSONS learned around the NW? If there are indeed some relatively healthy nate runs still around LETS HERE IT FOR KEEPING IT THAT WAY!!! C&R would enable that, continued harvest would not. Remember that we can eat replacable hatchery and farmed steelhead & salmon. - Steve

the puyallup river had a good run of nates?
you got to be kidding, i fished both the puyallup and carbon most of the last of the season, i i talked to most of the others on the river, no one had much luck catching hatchery fish let alone nates. i went up to the hatchery on voights creek and talked to the guys up there. they got the number for eggs and such, but did not have to throw many back.
where in the world can the state of Washington WDFW come up with such misconceptions. even the indians netting down the puyallup said that they were not getting many fish, and a look in the boats proved some of that.

elmtree

RT-

Your statement in the letter is flawed. Oregon still allows the retention of Nates on the Rogue and maybe a few others in SW. I know you can't on the elk and sixes anymore, but am not sure on the Chetco. I wish the would finish the job, but they haven't.

Thanks for the update RS. I wasn't aware of that for down the SW corner of the state of Ore. I focus on the N. half. Yes, I hope they match up down there too. - BTW, thanks for your contributions on ifish.net - Steve

Hey, just thought I would point out that the Puyallup and Carbon were both closed to native harvest by the WDFW for low returns. By the same way, emergency rule.

------------------
Just because I look big, dumb, and ugly, doesn't mean I am. It means I can stomp you for calling me it!