I don't know who 'blew up the schedule' but I do know that WDFW is an agency of the State of Washington and NOAA is an agency of the United States as is the BIA, and it appears that those agencies are in a pissing match with each other at our expense. We as taxpayers fund those agencies therefore they work for us and owe us their impartial service, their is no excuse for any vindictiveness from any of those agencies toward each other or towards us. I totally disagree with your statement "That's the way the world works" because such behavior would not be tolerated in any place in the world except a government funded bureaucracy.

Blackmouth:

My point is that if you make an appointment with a medical specialist, arrive 4 hours late, and expect to be seen immediately, you're being unreasonable at best. More likely, you're getting rescheduled two weeks out, and that's in a doctor's office, not a giant (*not suggesting that's ideal) government agency.

If you honestly think Puget Sound fishing seasons are NMFS's entire raison d'etre, you might be mistaken. That's another way to say it.

Larry: Just to be clear, by "our state," I meant WDFW and the Tribes. I agree that the Tribes weren't playing fair, and that was probably the biggest factor, but that doesn't change the fact that the delay was not on NOAA's end, and until policy is changed (not happening now), this will remain our reality. Bow to the Tribes or stay on the couch.

If the tribes are playing hardball (like this year!) then the state should just say F.U. to them, letting them set all the rules in their favor is a no go. bob r

I was very troubled by comments from Larry Carpenter (Vice Chair WA F&W Commission) on the Outdoor Line last week where he seemed to reject T. Nelson's call for pursuing an independent permit for 2017 in favor of the same ole co-management nonsense. Larry says we have to get along with the tribes, need to have co-management. That's not true. For instance, we've not had PS crab co-management for some time now and, although clunky, that fishery is working. While it is probably not helpful to be antagonistic to the tribes, the State absolutely needs to pursue its own 2017 permit - both for leverage and to avoid another mess like this year. If that process forces the ESA/Treaty priority issue to a head, hire good lawyers and have it out. Really getting tired of the cowardly approach taken by some of the folks who purport to represent sport fishing interests.

Take Down -

Puget Sound salmon management is pretty complex and there is some rationale to Carpenter's thinking. If the State is to pursue its own permit the feds (via Bob Turner's letter) were clear that acquiring a permit would require that non-treaty impacts be at or below 50% for each and every ESA listed Chinook stock. While it is true that in the aggregate the non-treaty impacts are less than that of the tribes there typically there are some Chinook stocks where the non-treaty fishery are exceeding that 50% level. This could be a significant issue for various mixed stock fisheries.

The most common example is the mid-Hood Canal stock where a typical division of the 12% allowed impacts who have the non-treaty fishers using more than 7%. To hold the non-treaty impacts to 50% or less of the allowable there will have to significant reductions in mixed stock fisheries (up to something like 15%). The areas that would take the major hit would likely be MA 7 and MA 9 Chinook fisheries. For some anglers that may not be a problem but for others that could be an issue. As I said things can get pretty complex in a hurry.

I do agree that going down the path of the State acquiring their own permit makes a lot of sense especially if there is an de-emphasis on mixed stock recreational fisheries. Wonder who would scream the loudest if non-treaty impacts use would be shifted from mixed stock fisheries to more terminal fisheries?

Curt

One thing to keep in mind, Take-Down, as regards the F&W Commission, is that while they are tasked with being a voice for sport interests, they are also tasked with being the same for the other fisheries interests in the state. That, plus the fact that WDFW has ultimate authority on management decisions, causes the Commission to be a less ineffective avenue for long-term changes that favor sport fishing interests.

The reasons why our government favors co-management aren't hard to understand from a business standpoint; words like cheaper, faster, and easier come to mind. Changing that thinking will be the exact opposite of those adjectives. Whatever momentum we had toward the change we agree is needed was lost when we rolled over and signed on to a plan that was barely better than what we had stood firmly against, just so we could go fishing.

If we ever want the situation to change in our favor, we're going to have to show some resolve. The way things work, the only effective way of doing that is to put our money where our mouths are, or, as the case may be here, NOT to put our money into WDFW's coffers when they fail to provide us with what we believe is fair opportunity. A severely reduced budget would cut into hatchery funding, which would force a few hands to fold in a hurry. The Legislature controls how much general fund money WDFW gets, but they have no control over whether or not license revenues materialize. Either we spend less (by giving up a year or two of what will be crappy fishing anyway), or we spend more on lobbying. Either way, money is what motivates change, today more than ever.

We were not late to the appointment/negotiations. And if I am displeased with my medical providers I can seek a different provider that fact gives providers a reason to please, this is an incentive that government funded bureaucracies lack.


I gave no reason to believe that I thought that NMFS's only function was the control of Puget Sound fishing seasons, in fact I thought that I had made it perfectly clear that I believe that this and most other government agencies are already too large, too powerful and largely held unaccountable to those they are intended to serve.

And what is lost/forgotten in all of this (I know some have mentioned this previously) is that bass and panfish fisheries in the two largest metropolitan lakes in the state have been shut down. Of the prime fishing months for me, April - October, I am going to lose 4 of the 7 months! It is absolutely maddening. On top of that, if bass are such voracious salmonid "predators" that they lifted all restrictions on them in the Columbia, what in the heck is the rationale for not allowing me to cast under docks to catch the salmonid-loving beasts in Lake Washington and Sammamish!!!

I know what the answer is, any fishing over ESA listed stocks, blah, blah, blah has to be approved by NOAA, blah, blah, blah...I go back to the fact that WDFW knew this outcome was a possibility and did not have a back-up plan to address this potential outcome. We have to remember that not only were salmon fishermen let down, but so were warmwater fishermen.

I agree..........complete nonsense!

Good points, BEANCOUNTER. The worst part about this whole fiasco was the blanket, largely unjustified closures. There needs to be enough room in the ESA policy for common sense exceptions, because all indications are that the same impasse will occur when the salmon forecasts don't allow for enough impacts to go around in each of the next few years, and keeping non-salmon anglers off the water while the BS ensues is not acceptable.

Yup, the regs are Federal and your fishery was collateral damage. Not sure what backup plan WDFW might have had to mitigate the warmwater impact.

let me preface this with the fact that it isn't your or my job to come up with a back-up plan for this case, there are folks that get paid to do that. In fact, you and I pay them with the fees we are charged for our fishing licenses. That being said, here you go:

1. Have an ESA impact % for the warmwater fishery on Lake Washington and Sammamish built into their models to account for the single encounter with an ESA listed fish by a bass fisherman skipping docks


2. I do not follow the NoF process beyond what I read here and other message boards, but as I recall, there was some anticipated tension going into the talks as returning number projections were [Bleeeeep!]. At that time, how about chatting with NOAA or whoever about how to keep specific fisheries open if crap hit the fan and a deal couldn't be struck with the natives.

3. Make fisherman (all fisherman, not just salmonid chasers) aware of the potential outcomes of the NoF process, ALL outcomes. How is this a back-up plan? Well, if I were to have known that taking my kids perch and bass fishing in lake Washington this spring/summer/fall was in jeopardy, I would have become part of the process. And not just myself, but all of the hardcore bassers and panfisherman (there are a few of them around) would have had a chance to voice their concerns. I am not saying this would have made a difference, but at least we would have had an opportunity to speak-up.

I still don't get how these bass are so awful that limits can be 100% lifted on one body of water with ESA listed fish (Columbia river and its tribs), but in another the risk of an encounter exceeds the "benefit" of having a fishery that removes a certain number of those deemed predators. This is more rhetorical than anything as I know why the Columbia thing happened...Sorry if I seem like I am ranting, but this sucks...and sucks for everyone.

Beancounter -

Larry has it exactly right; the various game fish fisheries have become collateral damage in the State's drive to insure the best salmon seasons possible. To date (since the first of May) clearly by far the largest impacts from the mess that became NOF has been the game fish seasons.

Even once the salmon seasons that came of this year's process receive Federal approval the impacts (loss) to game fish season in the Puget Sound region will re-surface this fall. It was far to easy for the State to throw those September and October seasons under the bus in order to maximize any potential salmon opportunities. Somehow the co-managers deemed it acceptable to allow coho impacts while targeting hatchery Chinook but not while targeting various game fish (whether perch and bass in the big lakes or cutthroat and steelhead in PS rivers). Again a matter of priorities.

At this point it is no longer about what can be done about this year - the seasons are set in stone! But rather what direction will things take next year. In that vein it would probably be beneficial to game fish interest in the various affected fisheries to let the non-treaty decision makers, Commission members and WDFW director Unsworth; that allowing those game fish season to become collateral damage with what appears to little concern is not acceptable going forward.

Curt

and yet you a$$holes at the WDFW still insist that the co-manager bull$hit is the prefered approach... It is in the co-managers best interest to make sure that nobody fishes for anything but them...

we're all fu(ked and I would like a fu(king refund for my shellfish and saltwater license

Piper -
While there are many that would agree with you that I may be an a$$hole the fact is that I have been retired since June 2005.

After retirement I took on the role as a Puget Sound sport fish advisor with the dual goal of championing recreational angling and the wild resource. I thought given my background and interests that I could supply some sort of bridge between the management and fishing worlds. You will be happy to know that after NOF 2016 I have resigned that role so there is an opportunity for you or some one else to step up to the plate and "right the ship".

I still continue to post on threads like this not to have WDFW's back but rather to supply my understanding of some of the complex fisheries management issue that you and other anglers may be dealing with. Hopefully that information might be helpful in allowing folks to form an "informed" position to advance their interests.

However if you wish to continue to rant on in ignorance please do not allow my feeble attempts in providing information derail your efforts.

Curt

Curt - Sorry to read that you have resigned your advisory group position and thank you for that service to our recreational fishing community and what I hope will be your continued insights via this website.

Curt, sorry to hear you resigned. I know you care and I know people at WDFW care. There will always be people who don't get accurate information, attend NOF meetings, fail to understand what the Bolt decision, ESA listing of fish etc mean. Or how it all impacts what WDFW can do. They will never understand or accept that in a lot of cases WDFW hands are tied. Which makes them pretty much ignorant. I know people like that. They bitch and wine but don't get involved. Don't follow what's going on.

Have there been mistakes over the years? Yes.

Good Luck

Honestly Curt, most times when I read your posts I get pissed off because you always spout the status quo... I hope the WDFW is smart enough to find some biologists that are ready to buck the status quo... it will not be us fishermen or the co-managers attending meetings that will solve the problem because all we want to do is harvest a fish...

Let me ask you this, Curt - if someone high up at WDFW decided that allowing fishing for warmwater species in Lk Washington and Sammamish had exactly zero impact on the the ESA listed species and was willing to put their job on the line to defend that decision, could that fishery have been offered/preserved?

BTW - I have always valued your input here, as you deliver facts without too much emotion, and you tell it like it is, and for that I thank you for participating in these threads. WDFW is definitely a poorer institution without you there - you, too, Salmo G.

Could someone explain what was gained, by the state, or changed (other than the ability to join the expedited tribal permit process in order to get some summer fishing in) between the time that the tribes and the state didn't agree and their coming to an agreement. Or alternately what the tribes gave up. It seems that the state essentially gave in to most or all of the tribal demands even though many sportsfishers supported the states position of not giving away the farm even if it meant not fishing this year (I'm not sure of the commercial fleets position.) Usually a negotiation and agreement consists of give and take by each side. Are the tribal fisheries management policies and philosophy so superior to the state's that it is given a superior position (understanding that the treaties and Boldt come before all.) How is that Oregon and Canada don't seem to have the problems that we have in WA.
Please direct me to the proper discussion if this has already been gone over.
As previously stated, I believe we should have our own permits (although I am uneducated in any of this) and that the tribes should be treated as the sovereign nations that they continually assert.
Ultimately I believe that if we can't come to gather with equality of all people (tribal or not) within our state in order to protect our natural resources we will never come together as a nation or global community and overcome discrimination and have tolerance for others.
Not sure if I expressed myself well but I tried. :>)
Thanks