Please let me add that I greatly appreciate the knowledge and opinions that everyone offers on this forum. There are truly some very educated people here.
Thanks

Not really sure if Piper has ever gone to one of the NOF meetings or one of the Commission meetings because if he had he would have seen that Curt was and is a real thorn in the side of the establishment WDFW. They hated to see him testify at Commission meetings or ask questions at NOF meetings as he was informed.

I stay away from PS issues as I do not live in that area so I am a spectator but lord luv a duck are you guys nuts? It must be something in the water you all drink. Guys like SG & CM are worth their weight in gold because they know & understand the system & history within WDF&W. In particular intercept fisheries which is the main bone of contention it appears and are the most difficult to manage. All you have going on is impacts of urbanization ,growth, and years of over harvest coming home with a vengeance which a deputy director told a bunch of folks in a meeting was going to happen. Oh forgot, that was 20 years ago and it has been long known this was coming.

As to the tribes scream, yell, bitch but dig to the bottom of the hole and the thing that has to be resolved is the disagreement around accountability of harvest impacts of selective fishing. To be blunt WDF&W has not put the effort in to correctly identify those impacts but rather just sorta cherry picked right down to inventing numbers. Hell in Grays Harbor this year they have a NT commercial that has a release wild Coho this year with a mortality rate that has ZERO and I mean ZERO chance of being accurate. It is a simple thing really, you have to drastically increase accountability and reduce harvest when productivity of a watershed is reduced or even a region such as PS. That is difficult to impossible for WDF&W to do for a lot of reasons many self inflicted but PS fisheries are simply being taken down by a death of a thousand wounds.

It is foolish and not productive to be frustrated with or blame individuals who have worked to protect our access to fisheries. They know the system and the framework that exist. Below are a few paragraphs from the January 19 NMFS letter to the tribes and the state, posted by bushbear the following day. It is worth while to read that letter again knowing what has happened. No one agency or group can be blamed for where we are at today.

“In 2015, and even as we now enter the North of Falcon process for 2016, considerable discussion
has focused on consequences that could occur should the co-managers fail to reach agreement on
fisheries in Puget Sound through the North of Falcon process. Those consequences have broad
reach, but certainly could affect decisions to be made by NOAA Fisheries under the MagnusonStevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) regarding the ocean salmon fisheries
(Pacific Fishery Management Council or PFMC fisheries); and NOAA's ability to make timely
determinations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding Puget Sound fisheries.

To approve the Council's final management measures, NOAA Fisheries must make a determination
that the measures are consistent with the MSA. The MSA has procedural and biological
requirements for approval which are captured in the FMP, but also requires that the fishery be
consistent with "other applicable law." "Other applicable law" with respect to Puget Sound stocks
means that NOAA Fisheries must determine that the management measures:

• Are consistent with the ESA.
• Are consistent with the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST).
• Allow for full exercise of treaty rights by affected treaty fishing tribes, consistent with
court orders in U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, Hoh v. Baldrige and other cases.

Implementation of the PST in the United States is governed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act
(PSTA). The PSTA governs the makeup and conduct of the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission and provides for enforcement of the PST in the U.S. The PSTA authorizes NOAA Fisheries to preempt "any action . . . the results of which place the United States in jeopardy of not
fulfilling its international obligations under the Treaty .... "

All of the management starts with the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act which expires in 2018. NOF is just one step in the process, an important one but not the final determination of season setting. I would hope that Puget sound sport fishers and the tribes would work to address what I posted in January.

“I would also note that the PST expires in 2018 and new negotiations are starting this year. It is a treaty and the negotiations are carried out by federal agencies, advised by interested parties and hopefully good scientific information. The concepts of river of origin, limiting weak stocks, and interception fisheries all must be addressed. The Yukon, Fraser, and Columbia rivers played a significant role in the present treaty. I think the Puget Sound chinook should be given a larger role in the upcoming negotiations and Alaska catches of southern stocks should be constrained. I know the west coast Vancouver Island fishery organizations are supporting Canadian research with the goal of increasing their chinook catch share. I hope that Washington and Oregon interested parties are getting involved.”

Not to derail an otherwise highly productive thread, but to frame it regionally, BC (specifically SVI) has its own issues with catch sharing with tribal interests. . .some fish trading, looking to limit rec chinook catch to supplement loss of first nation sockeye totes in a tough year,

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/inde...ulations.63055/

fb

ie. it ain't just WA that has difficulties with catch allocation between conflicted user groups,

fb

Off topic, but to follow up on WN1A's above post regarding the import of the upcoming Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations on Puget Sound Chinook and salmon fisheries in the Sound, NOAA recently released an ESA 5-year status review which included an assessment of Puget Sound Chinook. The assessment indicates that exploitation rates on most Puget Sound Chinook stocks have increased since the 1990s and that the primary cause of this is Canadian interceptions of Puget Sound Chinook off the West Coast of Vancouver Island. NOAA's review notes that Canadian fisheries managers changed the temporal pattern of their fishing to avoid WCVI stocks, which resulted in increased impacts on Puget Sound stocks. (A notable exception to this pattern is the North Puget Sound region stocks that migrate through the Strait of Georgia as opposed to along the WCVI.) See p. 239 of STATUS REVIEW UPDATE FOR
PACIFIC SALMON AND STEELHEAD LISTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT: PACIFIC NORTHWEST, December 21, 2016, NORTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.../2016_nwfsc.pdf

The status review does not paint a pretty picture regarding the recovery status of Puget Sound Chinook:

"Most populations are also consistently below the spawner-recruit levels identified [ ] as consistent with recovery. Across the ESU, most populations have declined in abundance since the last status review in 2011, and indeed, this decline has been persistent over the past 7 to 10 years. Productivity remains low in most populations. Hatchery-origin spawners are present in high fractions in most populations outside the Skagit watershed, and in many watersheds the fraction of spawner abundances that are natural-origin have declined over time. . . The expected benefits [from habitat restoration efforts] will take years or decades to produce significant improvement in natural population viability parameters." Page 244.

As frustrating as this year's North of Falcon process has been for those involved and those, like myself, who are mostly watching from outside (although I did attend one meeting and submit written comments), if poor ocean conditions in 2014 and 2015 affected chinook stocks in a similar manner to coho stocks, the next few years could be even more difficult.

I may have let the rum get the best of me last night. I am sorry to take it out on the folks at WDFW both retired and current, including you Curt.

I am most frustrated because last year was the best salmon season I've had in 15 years... I have a difficult time giving it up this year when I know that the commercial nets will be all over the north end of the canal and in Elliot bay catching the same fish that I used to be able to fish for...

If the WDFW wants to give up Puget sound to the Indians, do it... at least then maybe the indians can offer a guide service so the average local will be able to catch a fish again...

Ah at PFMC the BC rep stated flatly in public that if the the US got Alaska off their fish they would do the same for Washington bound fish. BC is in that AK box just as everyone else is. Not knowing PS numbers on intercept I can tell you it is 50% on Chinook by CWT prior to entering Washington waters on GH & Willapa with NOAA chiming in that if all impacts are counted it is above 80%. Other than WN I have seldom seen the Chinook Annex discussed which simply tells me folks are not interested in a solution but rather bitching. Feels good but not much accomplished but normal for a WA REC.

The tribes will get their fish despite WDF&W and the FEDS giving damn near the whole thing to AK in PST.

There was quote from the early years of PST annual negotiations "Can the US and Alaska agree on this?"

AK operates in their own world, by their own rules, and the rest of the US lets them.

When former Director Koenings worked for ADFG he argued that AK had a right to BC and WA fish because they protected the ocean from harm. This was in response to BC's argument that they should get the benefit of the fish produced in their rivers.

So, when BC proposes dams or mines in Northern BC that are opposed by fishermen, ask yourself why they should produce fish for other countries.

One of the shocks from the Feds when the co-managers submit their first Puget Sound Chinook management plan was their determination that those northern fisheries take of the Puget Sound listed Chinook was not an issue under ESA.

One would think; especially consider the continued decline of Puget Sound listed Chinook that the case could be made that those Northern fisheries (especially those non-selective fisheries) represent an ESA take. One would have hoped that the State, tribes, tribal and non-treaty fishers could have gotten on the same page and lobby long and hard to the Feds, US congressmen and senators, etc. that those Northern impacts be considered under ESA.

But no everyone is much more concern about insuring that user groups get their full share (1/2) of the last fish.

Curt

I'm sorry but to state that folks would rather bitch than have a solution is mistaken. I for one see discussing, considering, and expressing my thoughts on the matters at hand (bitching) to be one of the few tools that I have which might influence the situation.

If I thought it would have a positive affect I would attend meetings however I have been on and have had involvement with various boards and from what I have seen the majority of consequential information gathering, deliberaration and decision making goes on behind closed doors or by board members in casual conversations before the meetings and unless any input presented at the public hearings is well reasoned, well presented, and well supported, and offer a workable solution to the issue they have little to no chance of consideration.

Of course a unified organization with good leadership is the key to achieving success but with all of the competing interests wanting their piece of the pie that will be hard to achieve.

P.S. Thanks to all of the PP members who have spent their time and energy trying to help our situation through their representation and by providing us with information. I know that even though we might at times sound like a thankless lot your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Good come back but..................it is bitching in a way as it does little. To break things it takes much more. PDR's on the issue to get documents followed by a continuous public information campaign by organizations intent on making change AND a legal war chest. You bust WDF&W's ( and the state gov period ) for the slightest violation of the law ( hell that is easy as WDF&W cannot even get the APA process right ) and do not get off them. You can and will start the thing on a change of direction.

Government reacts to only one thing, PAIN. It can be political but the best is you bring the politics to the agencies budget. $$$$ are the pain for any agency and just about the only thing they react to. When our current Lt. Governor Mr. Owen was a Senator for East Grays Harbor he once took all of Fish Managements funds out of the budget ( he was chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee ) when they would not give GH a break. Helped a bit as about half the agency upper management showed up at the next hearing and did change that issue which was over money for operations.

When you have two US Senators with the seniority ours have and nothing gets done on a problem that could literally cost PS & the state billions with ESA restrictions as they move to protect the fish then I would say we are lacking in political leadership.

No doubt!

ESA restrictions that could literally cost PS & the state billions will never be enforced due to the fact the economy can't possibly function with said restrictions. The two US Senators with the seniority ours have are providing exactly the leadership required of them by the economic interests they are protecting.

Which is why natural resources are screwed.

I'm all for killing off all the wild fish... I didn't used to be, but with all this bull$hit, I am now...

Are you still fu**ing drunk? Bob R

not tonight Bob... AWFMD!!

Todays update from NOAA:

We are hoping to complete our ESA evaluation by COB this Friday, but we won't know for sure until our internal review of the document is complete. There is always the possibility that the review turns up additional questions or information that need to be addressed which may result in delay. We will notify the co-managers as soon as the evaluation is complete and the incidental take statement is signed so they can get the word out.

________________

I asked for another update on Thursday. She agreed