I think you are insulting Mr. Hardy. I think your on the right track though but I will go with Inspector Jacques Clouseau

Solid. Invest more in all the people and things the public hates most about WDFW. That'll get their appetites up for fee increases!

Whew! I was having a hard time keeping track, but Kelly says only two new FTEs in the upper management tier. Is the new Director circling the wagons and doubling down on the worst attributes of the agency?

WDFW is broken, and manages with a business plan based in the mid-20th century. Susewind says he wants to ". . . have 21st century technology, work spaces, records management, and workforce policies that attract and retain talent." But he omitted having a 21st century business model and plan.

I don't know how there rest of you feel about Ron Warren, but I can tell you from my experience that I don't trust nor respect him. This is personal from my direct dealings with him. I have heard from others that have said the same thing.

As I said, this is MY experience with him, and others may feel different. I had some very close interactions with Warren and Carpenter during the preceding three years when working on the Open Meeting Campaign, and through the revelation and release of the Ten Year Chinook Salmon Management Plan, and there were some very strong feelings exchanged about trust.

I've decided to send a letter to Director Susewind and Chair Carpenter to let them know that I believe the Directors choice to promote Ron Warren is counter productive in as far as his desire to build better relations with the constituents.

Perhaps if any of you have had the same experience with Ron, you could let Director Susewind know.

I want to give Dir. Susewind the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to make things better, but I also believe he is falling into the same trap that Dir. Unsworth fell into, and that is relying on Ron Warren to be an honorable man. We know how that ended up.

As promised, I sent this letter a few moments ago to Director Susewind and Chair Carpenter:


Director Susewind, Chair Carpenter,

I am writing you to express concern on the planned appointment of Mr. Ron Warren to the position of Director of Fish Policy.

Although the job description is not yet public, the title indicates that Mr. Warren will be assuming a larger leadership role in the process of Co-management and the crafting of negotiations and agreements which ultimately become policy and law.

As you recognized a need to better the relationships with your constituents I thought I would take a moment as your constituent to relay how your announcement of appointing Mr. Warren to a Directorship was received by many in the community.

Frankly, the response has been greatly negative.

At a time when the Department is in litigation for violations of both the Open Public Meetings Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act for actions in the North of Falcon process (NOF), the promotion of Mr. Warren, who oversee’s the NOF seems untimely if not reckless.

The crafting of the Ten Year Chinook Salmon Management plan, which Mr. Warren was lead in, was done behind the backs of the Commission and the public, and is still fresh on the minds of those you're asking to support this decision.

Unfortunately, over his tenure, Mr. Warren has earned a very poor track record and reputation with the recreational population at large. Frankly, he is not trusted.

I’m sure there are some within the advisory groups that will chime in support for Mr. Warren, and I do not wish to condemn their support. I just wanted to bring to your attention how a great many of the “Joe Fishermen” feel about your decision regarding Mr. Warren.

We do believe you are looking forward, and want to lead the Department into better times, and you are well supported in this effort. We hope you consider taking the pulse of the citizen sportsmen as part of the plan.


With respect,

The reason Warren keeps getting promoted is that he is a "company guy," to his core. He has spent years lying and delivering bad news to sport fishers, then taking the brunt of the angry reactions. Taking heat for the top brass has proven a very successful career path for Mr. Warren.

Flea I am not sure within the agency culture they regard it as lying. For staff it is a manner of doing business and the best I have ever gotten in thought is this. They believe it is perfectly acceptable to with hold information or provide misleading information that leads you to a conclusion they desire. Now I know what my Mother thought when I tried that but all can draw their own conclusions.

this is the kind of stuff that gets me going on a big coho prediction year. Any chance you have a pic you could share? It's going to be a long summer!

Unlike other forums I cannot post photos here. Don't have that problem on ANY other local fishing forum. Bob R

I agree "lying" is an ugly word, but as regards fisheries issues, I'm calling a spade only by its proper name from now on. The gloves are off.

OK folks this is interesting. If you are following the thread on the Advocacy legal challenge on transparency you will be amazed at this one. In a effort to blunt this WDFD changed how you can track the WAC / APA process. If you go to the website and type in RULES in the search box you current rule making page, then click on the one you want Grays Harbor, Willapa, ect to get to pages with a absolute document dump. This link is for Grays Harbor Commercial and the REC part is mixed in. Here is the link and more later. Oh, it is 777 pages.


https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/2019%20GH%20NOF%20Rules%20File.pdf

Had a question this morning as the rumor mill has it that changes are happening in Region 6 Fish Program staff. ( harvest ) Ah well I have word from some that was happening but I do not know and I am not going to ask. With the Ron Warren move and other things it would not surprise me as some sort of restructure is underway, how much how far time will tell. Remember folks some years back a senior staffer was asked to take a job at R-6 and reacted with a strong NO followed by " they still eat their young down there " . Tuff neighborhood the coast is, not for the weak of heart !

And the answer is..................….I heard that Annette Hoffman is going over to the Dept of Ecology. Mike Gross and Randy Cooper are both going to retire. Both of them work up here on the NOP end of Region 6

My thought to Mr. Herring.

Mr. Herring,

With the forecast below 500 this is sorta expected. That said the use of flows for the Chehalis below South Monte is pure BS. Springers stage up above the South Elma bridge ( mostly above Porter ) and flows have just plain zip to do with anything as unless you have a DO problem the difference in the size of the holding changes is in inches. It is not a issue.

Now hooking mortalities are a real issue and with the small run could have a impact. If you asked Mike he would tell you that impacts in years with a season are minimal. ( 4 or so ) South Elma Bridge down would have solved 99% of the issue instead you chose to drive a nail with a sledge hammer and place a undue burden on trout fishers. Conservation yes but it should be done in a manner that inflicts the least restrictions on the fishers to accomplish the goal.

A little honesty would be helpful but is seldom but as usual was not used.. One could call and bitch you out Chad but I see little reason to think that would be useful. Frankly internally another staffer has been sniping around this issue on the Skook for some time but he really does not come out in the open very often. More of the same, business as usual.

Dave

Chehalis River and tributaries to close to fishing
Action: Closes Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North Fork Newaukum River, South Fork Newaukum River, and Skookumchuck River to fishing.

Effective date: Immediately until further notice.
Species affected: All species.
Location: Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North Fork Newaukum River, South Fork Newaukum River and Skookumchuck River.

Reason for action: Streams and rivers where spring Chinook hold and stage through the summer are experiencing lower than normal stream flows. Spring Chinook hold and stage in the Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, north and south forks of the Newaukum River and the Skookumchuck River. Low stream flows decrease holding and staging refuges and elevate vulnerability and pressure on these Chinook. Any encounters of spring Chinook could subject these fish to stress, injury, or death.

Additional information: Please see the 2019-20 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet or visit the WDFW website at wdfw.wa.gov for additional fishing opportunities and regulations.

Information contact: Chad Herring, Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Fishery Policy Lead Region 6, 360-249-4628, ext. 299.

This kinda the same actions as was taken on the Stilly. There are many ways to protect salmon and fish trout. Hook size restrictions, circle hooks, floating fly lines, and so on. There are probably ways to allow spiny ray fishing that protect salmon, too.

It could be done if WDFW was interested in providing the non-salmon angler with fishing. IF.

WDFW continues driving headlong over the cliff of anadromous fish irrelevancy. Close everything all the time. And in all your spare time, will you sport fishermen please contact your Legislators and ask them to fully fund WDFW with an increase in the General Fund appropriation, reinstate the Columbia River Endorsement fee, and increase fishing license fees so we can continue this status quo?

When you look up "Incompetence" in the dictionary, Salmo's post should be the example of the definition!! Well done!

I have gotten some questions on the closure so I will try to get a bit clearer without writing a book. Springers in July are pretty much through tidewater from the South Elma bridge down. There are still always a few coming but they are moving and do not hang around much. Above South Elma bridge to Porter some stop and start staging up but the number is small and last time I tried to get the information on that subject I was stone walled and referred to the Chehalis Flood Authority. Oh Region 6 has the information as they let it slip at a NOF meeting this year. Thing is using a good fish finder running hole to hole you will find the fish so with holding the information is simply silly.

Now above Porter it is a bit of different story as they do start to park ( stage ) and your really in the areas particularly on the tribs and upper mainstem. Above Porter is always closed to later in the fall salmon season compared to Porter down stream for this reason. Thing is the trout fishers do not come into contact with Springers very often if at all as you have to bait up for Chinook not a small spinner or trolling a worm. Flows have zip to do with this and it is more about a staffer being ticked that some folks screw with springers on the Skook while fishing other species. Then you have the bandits but frankly a snagger is not going to be in tide water or even below Porter on Springers. That being the case one might casually suggest that enforcement actually do their jobs. Just easier to put out BS on flows screw everyone I guess.

Adding a little, yes low flows effect salmon in the juvenile rearing areas. Adults yes but only if the rains do not show until late in the third week of November or later, resulting in the Chinook spawning lower in the river. As to the Skook, unless the lake behind the dam went dry flows are not a issue. In fact the reason Springers were not mitigated for was that the augmented flows the dam would provide in summer months would produce a vibrant Springer population. Like I said honesty is in short supply.

The dam proponents have totally written off the importance of springer use above the upper Chehalis dam site. Over the past 30 years, I almost always could see a few chinook adults holding between Fisk Falls and Pe Ell this time of year. The styrofoam shrimp containers and snagger-related garbage up there (and in a few other nearby upper watershed tribs) suggest that the locals are well aware of this fact. The illicit springer fishery has been going on in the upper watershed for many many years.

Sad to see this last remnant wild portion of Chehalis springers being written off. Hope the dam gets stopped.

I am not as anti dam as many, I like electricity, but we have two dams in the Chehalis Basin that are mitigated for. The Wynoochee which after over 25 years WDFW has still not complied with the mitigation and even tried to get out of the Steelhead component. In the case of the Skook they released the mit Coho at Bingham which violated the mitigation contract and only stopped when some upper basin folks found out buried in the mitigation contract was a clause that said the releases had to be above the Chehalis Reservation and were going to sue. The weir for Springers protection was abandoned by WDFW and generally about everything I have seen was just BS.

So I think your correct as every mitigation agreement in the Chehalis Basin has been violated by every signatory on the agreement. On the Nooch it was WDFW (includes old Game Dept), City of Aberdeen, QIN, Chehalis Tribe, Tacoma City light. The Skook I do not recall but all the powers to be have been silent on all aspects. So yup I think your right.