#956548 - 04/29/16 09:44 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/15/12
Posts: 247
|
WDFW is really taking a beating on social media after the announcement about the closures today. I guess we can't expect people to understand all the complexities of the issue, but they are shooting the messenger.
WDFW's gonna have to figure out a way to redirect some of that pressure to NOAA-F.
Edited by Chasin' Baitman (04/29/16 09:44 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956549 - 04/29/16 10:05 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Chasin' Baitman]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
Sorry, but I feel WDFW didn't fully disclose the possible effects to game fisheries, let alone to those who are mainly interested in steelheading, from a decision that was really based on salt water salmon fishery sharing. This should have been vetted across a wider audience and they do deserve quite a bit of the blame IMO.
Edited by rojoband (04/29/16 10:06 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956551 - 04/29/16 10:18 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Chasin' Baitman]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 04/18/12
Posts: 311
Loc: Elma, WA
|
WDFW is really taking a beating on social media after the announcement about the closures today. I guess we can't expect people to understand all the complexities of the issue, but they are shooting the messenger.
WDFW's gonna have to figure out a way to redirect some of that pressure to NOAA-F. I agree, but what I don't understand is why they would close down trout fishing and summer steelhead. Most guys throwing a wooly bugger or reverse spider aren't catching a lot of chinook or coho for that matter. Maybe a few local coho, but negligible. Also, just throw a bait ban on for all rivers with Salmon runs. Check peoples gear, If they are running 60lb braid, 20lb leader a big gob of eggs with a 3/0-5/0 hook, they are not targeting summer steelhead. Why punish us guys throwing flies and spoons for trout and steelhead.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956552 - 04/29/16 10:20 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/15/12
Posts: 247
|
Yeah, I understand what you mean. It does suck. But if this information had come to light earlier would you have pressured WDFW to cave to the tribes demands?
The options seem like bad and worse. Bad being the uncharted waters we're in now, worse being annually shat upon by the tribes.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956555 - 04/29/16 11:19 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Smalma]
|
Piper
Unregistered
|
It may be worth re-stating that we are not only looking at no salmon fishing on Puget Sound and its rivers there will also be no fishing for game fish on any freshwater water areas where Chinook may be found. That means come June first none of the local rivers will open for steelhead or other game fish. It also means that starting likely next week there will be no fishing for bass, perch, cutthroat or other game fish on Lake Washington.
The ban of fishing for game fish in those freshwater areas will remain in place until such time as the State gets "federal ESA take coverage" for potential Chinook encounters. We should soon see a extensive listed of emergency regulations closure posted by WDFW that will remain in place until an optimist mid-summer to potentially several years!
While the Puget Sound marine anglers will have Ling cod , Halibut, flounders and maybe cutthroat to fish for the freshwater folks will have nothing for the duration.
Curt I hope WDFW gets reamed over this whole stinking pile of [Bleeeeep!] if for nothing but for this post... WDFW would rather see all fishing shut down so that they can just sit in thier office and do nothing and just rub it in our faces... they will probably close lake roosevelt for fear that a coho might jump the grand coulee dam and miss the gillnet is was supposed to die in...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956557 - 04/30/16 12:43 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: ]
|
Fry
Registered: 02/01/14
Posts: 26
|
Can someone explain to me where WDFW is in the process of applying for ESA take coverage for listed Chinook?
The reason I ask this is because this issue -- potentially shutting down fisheries if no agreement with the tribes is reached -- is not new. If I recall correctly, the issue came up last year as well when the WDFW capitulated to tribal demands and closed area 10. I seem to recall reports at the time saying WDFW was "blindsided" and capitulated because its leadership concluded that if no agreement was reached it would likely result in closed fisheries throughout Puget sound, and maybe even on the coast. So it appears WDFW has known about this problem for at least a year, and it knew the situation could resurface this year.
It doesn't take a genius in game theory to understand that WDFW is at a significant negotiating disadvantage when it must rely on reaching agreement with each of the tribes in order to proceed with its proposed fisheries. I would expect 2015's North of Falcon process to have driven that point home to WDFW's leadership.
So, given that, did WDFW take any proactive steps to secure the necessary ESA take coverage? I'm not trying to bash WDFW here -- I really just want to understand what kind of contingency planning the agency did given that the lack of agreement with one or more tribes was very foreseeable. And, if WDFW did not take any proactive steps, perhaps there are good reasons why it didn't -- and if there are I'd like to hear them.
It's quite probable that even if WDFW had started the ESA take coverage process (e.g., rule 4(d) exemption, Sec. 10 permit) immediately after North of Falcon 2015, the process would still not be complete. Nonetheless, if it had started the process (i.e., prepared and submitted an application), it may have been in a much better position than it is today.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956559 - 04/30/16 07:00 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7594
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
If they had prepared an application and submitted it then it would have been easy to accuse them of bad-faith negotiations, at least by the Tribes and NOAA. Even if they had applied, NOAA would still have had to act and they were playing catch-up with the steelhead HGMPs.
Kinda obvious that this whole process shows no long-range planning or real commitment to accomplishing anything what with NOAA holding the permit cards and being underfunded and understaffed.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956563 - 04/30/16 08:30 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Lucky Louie]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 511
|
I like looking at that stuff. Do you mind sending all coho and chinook tag information concerning Washington/Oregon origin stocks caught in Alaska. Thanks Sorry, but I'm just shaking my head over the ridiculous amount of information you just asked me to send you, so I'm just going to assume you don't understand how much you are asking for. If you want all the information you requested I would somehow have to figure out how to send you everything in the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. I absolutely do not intend to do that. If you wish all this information please go to their website, register for an RMIS account and you can work on getting all the information your heart desires. For RoeVsWade, and Lucky Louie, if you want information from other fisheries similar to what I provided for AK coho impacts and you don't want to go to the trouble of establishing accounts and querying data bases, a good source of fishery information is in Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans published on WDFW and NOAA websites. Contribution to fisheries is usually described in Section 3.3.1 of these plans.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956564 - 04/30/16 09:01 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Chasin' Baitman]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 234
|
WDFW's gonna have to figure out a way to redirect some of that pressure to NOAA-F.
You want to explain to everyone here how this predicament is in any way NOAA's fault? I get the hatchery steelhead and other hatchery permit argument.....this, I don't see NOAA at fault by a long shot. In fact, they gave fair warning about this situation months ago. Now everyone wants to act all surprised...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956566 - 04/30/16 09:18 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/15/12
Posts: 247
|
Everyone listen up! JustBecause has implored me to explain to you why this predicament is NOAA's fault.
NOAA is the office of the federal government that administers fisheries policy. They are requiring that waters where people fish for trout, bass and perch be closed down because on very rare occasions a chinook swims through there.
Oh and then there's the fact they've allowed the tribes to drive fishing policy in WA state for the last 30 years.
Edited by Chasin' Baitman (04/30/16 09:31 AM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956567 - 04/30/16 09:22 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: ]
|
Parr
Registered: 02/24/12
Posts: 62
|
It may be worth re-stating that we are not only looking at no salmon fishing on Puget Sound and its rivers there will also be no fishing for game fish on any freshwater water areas where Chinook may be found. That means come June first none of the local rivers will open for steelhead or other game fish. It also means that starting likely next week there will be no fishing for bass, perch, cutthroat or other game fish on Lake Washington.
The ban of fishing for game fish in those freshwater areas will remain in place until such time as the State gets "federal ESA take coverage" for potential Chinook encounters. We should soon see a extensive listed of emergency regulations closure posted by WDFW that will remain in place until an optimist mid-summer to potentially several years!
While the Puget Sound marine anglers will have Ling cod , Halibut, flounders and maybe cutthroat to fish for the freshwater folks will have nothing for the duration.
Curt I hope WDFW gets reamed over this whole stinking pile of [Bleeeeep!] if for nothing but for this post... WDFW would rather see all fishing shut down so that they can just sit in thier office and do nothing and just rub it in our faces... they will probably close lake roosevelt for fear that a coho might jump the grand coulee dam and miss the gillnet is was supposed to die in... Solid work Piper,way to show support for the WDFW and the advisory group who put in uncounted hours of their own time in a thankless job who for once make a stand and say "no more". What have YOU done to done besides the obvious? BTW Lake Roosevelt would be covered under CR impacts,not P.S.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956570 - 04/30/16 09:43 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Chasin' Baitman]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 234
|
Everyone listen up! JustBecause has implored me to explain to you why this predicament is NOAA's fault.
NOAA is the office of the federal government that administers fisheries policy. They are requiring that waters where people fish for trout, bass and perch be closed down because on very rare occasions a chinook swims through there.
Oh and then there's the fact they've allowed the tribes to drive fishing policy in WA state for the last 30 years. Chaisin', Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I hoped you would, a complete misunderstaning of the feds role and authority here... NOAA is the fed agency that administers the ESA for marine species, that is their only role In Puget Sound. The state and tribes, together, are responsible for all aspects of fishery management, or mis-management. Remember, an agreement here solves everything!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956575 - 04/30/16 10:26 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/15/12
Posts: 247
|
Everyone listen up! JustBecause has implored me to explain to you why this predicament is NOAA's fault.
NOAA is the office of the federal government that administers fisheries policy. They are requiring that waters where people fish for trout, bass and perch be closed down because on very rare occasions a chinook swims through there.
Oh and then there's the fact they've allowed the tribes to drive fishing policy in WA state for the last 30 years. Chaisin', Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I hoped you would, a complete misunderstaning of the feds role and authority here... NOAA is the fed agency that administers the ESA for marine species, that is their only role In Puget Sound. The state and tribes, together, are responsible for all aspects of fishery management, or mis-management. Remember, an agreement here solves everything! OHHHHHHHHHH SNAP! YOU GOT ME JB! ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are the flame KANG brother! All slingin your knowledge of the pervue of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. DAMN! Here I was just a lowly non-tribal angler, with some misguided notion that NOAA was responsible for "the stewardship of the nation's ocean resources and their habitat". Not sure where I got that crazy idea. I'm just going to crawl back into my bass lake now. NT fishers have gotten the shaft *because* we've come to an agreement with tribes. Coming to yet another inequitable agreement definitely DOES NOT solve the issue. If you believe that the agreement has always been fair and equitable, [something not nice].
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956581 - 04/30/16 11:55 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 234
|
Flame Kang!
Thanks, I think I'll keep that one...
No personal insult intended, just trying to impress apon folks the situation and who is and isn't responsible. You say it at the end of your post...the offer the tribes put on the table was not acceptable to the non-treaty fishers...next steps.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956582 - 04/30/16 12:04 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: OncyT]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
I like looking at that stuff. Do you mind sending all coho and chinook tag information concerning Washington/Oregon origin stocks caught in Alaska. Thanks Sorry, but I'm just shaking my head over the ridiculous amount of information you just asked me to send you, so I'm just going to assume you don't understand how much you are asking for. Yes, there is a ridiculous amount of salmon with origin of the lower 48 being caught in Alaska. Of course I knew what I was asking; you are not the only one with databases. Just looking for additional info --- if available.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein
No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956584 - 04/30/16 12:14 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Lucky Louie]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
According to last year’s Co-Managers LOAF agreement, the Tulalip tribe would have started by now last year to fish for Chinook---No agreement no fishing?
Another early casualty could be a C&S Chinook fishery in 78C&79D Skagit River area involving several weeks beginning as early as May 3 last year. This involving a possible 3 tribes.
Could be a handful of unhappy tribes right about now.
I wonder if we will start seeing fishing activity by the tribes. If the bubble opens to them, then shouldn't it open to sport anglers also. Not that the bubble is my favorite place to fish, but it could be.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein
No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956592 - 04/30/16 03:59 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1529
Loc: Tacoma
|
I just took a quick look. It only takes $5.00 filing fee to start and initiative. While I am sure the cost would go up drastically if you proceeded with one, it might be worth it to file one to allow gambling in certain locations in Washington state. If a person could actually get it on to the ballot, I would think the tribes would have to respond. Hitting them in the pocket book may be the best way to get their attention. I think at least 17 million was spent in the fight to defeat the GMO initiative.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956600 - 04/30/16 07:24 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: BrianM]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/15/12
Posts: 247
|
Can someone explain to me where WDFW is in the process of applying for ESA take coverage for listed Chinook?
The reason I ask this is because this issue -- potentially shutting down fisheries if no agreement with the tribes is reached -- is not new. If I recall correctly, the issue came up last year as well when the WDFW capitulated to tribal demands and closed area 10. I seem to recall reports at the time saying WDFW was "blindsided" and capitulated because its leadership concluded that if no agreement was reached it would likely result in closed fisheries throughout Puget sound, and maybe even on the coast. So it appears WDFW has known about this problem for at least a year, and it knew the situation could resurface this year.
It doesn't take a genius in game theory to understand that WDFW is at a significant negotiating disadvantage when it must rely on reaching agreement with each of the tribes in order to proceed with its proposed fisheries. I would expect 2015's North of Falcon process to have driven that point home to WDFW's leadership.
So, given that, did WDFW take any proactive steps to secure the necessary ESA take coverage? I'm not trying to bash WDFW here -- I really just want to understand what kind of contingency planning the agency did given that the lack of agreement with one or more tribes was very foreseeable. And, if WDFW did not take any proactive steps, perhaps there are good reasons why it didn't -- and if there are I'd like to hear them.
It's quite probable that even if WDFW had started the ESA take coverage process (e.g., rule 4(d) exemption, Sec. 10 permit) immediately after North of Falcon 2015, the process would still not be complete. Nonetheless, if it had started the process (i.e., prepared and submitted an application), it may have been in a much better position than it is today. One could argue - with the exact same logic - that NMFS should have seen this coming too. It's not like NOF has really been going swimmingly. Though on the other hand it looks likely that they did/do have a contingency plan for permitting, but for the tribes only. Thus the intimations that the tribes will be permitted in an express fashion.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956604 - 04/30/16 11:15 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
The Original Boat Ho
Registered: 02/08/00
Posts: 2917
Loc: Bellevue
|
Wars have been started for much less than this BS. Can anyone in their right mind believe that this is what OUR forefathers thought would happen when we entered into the treaties. We should should set things right.
_________________________
It's good to have friends It's better to have friends with boats ***GutZ***
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (Carcassman, 1 invisible),
1044
Guests and
0
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11499 Members
17 Forums
72913 Topics
824771 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|