I'll agree to agree!

I never meant to communicate that I don't think that the pinniped population is a problem and a big one, currently. I also haven't heard anyone - fishing citizen, tribe, agency - say otherwise. The hard part is not agree that they are a problem, it's getting around existing federal laws. They have made some, small in-roads in the lower Columbia and now the lower Willamette Rivers on removal programs, but not at all on the scale that I seen proposed here.

I do think Carcassman's contextual comments are important here, however. Puget sound pinnipeds likely are the current, biggest consumer of the remnant (10%) PS salmon. I't would be harder to convince me that they are the cause of the current status.

Anyway, back to your regular programming.....sounds like there were some positive outcomes of the "open" co-manager plenary session. Have not seen any response from the Resident "Open the Meetings!" guy yet, understanding that this wasn't an open NOF negotiation meeting?

As we talk about predation I have seen a series of recent papers that have followed to development of Cormorant rookeries (breeding colonies) in the Salish Sea, both BC and US. One very interesting conclusion is that there was no cormorant nesting, at least in saltwater sites, until after the beginning off the 20th Century. Apparently, consumption of eggs by natives and settlers prevented nesting in-Sound. What this means is that the presence of breeding corms in-Sound is something new and represents a new predator and not part of the evolutionary history.

While how we got here is certainly worthy of discussion the immediate issue seems to be one of reducing impacts on all salmonids and particularly Chinook (for Orcas) and concurrently to improve returns on the ESA listed components of those same Chinook returns while still providing a reason for the recreational fishers to continue to support hatchery production.

The impact of pinniped predation on ESA listed salmonids (and possibly ESA listed rockfish) has been recognized for years with the most recent study reaffirming those earlier conclusions and providing some level of quantification. Unfortunately, NOAA seems unable or unwilling to initiate control measures and/or changes to the MMPA relying, instead, on various State agencies to try and change the paradigm. I consider that an abrogation of their responsibility.

There was a similar situation in Hawaii in the 80s. Introduced goats and sheep were destroying the food source (sole) of an ESA listed bird, the Palila. The bird actually was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the State of Hawaii and it won. Under ESA the destruction of the habitat/food source was a take. Hawaii was ordered to remove the sheep. They didn't want to and drug their feet as the hunters opposed removal.

They have finally made significant inroads into the numbers, built exclusion fences, and improved the tree growth.

I think the only way the SRKW's get saved is a lawsuit shutting down the fisheries that are ahead of the whales (trailing fisheries are fine) and mandating the necessary habitat restoration. The State's and Fed's have, I believe, very little interest in actual restoration of SRKW or Chinook because it will require pi**ing off a lot of folks, whether it be AK fishermen (and their CongressCritters), Tribes, or lovers of brown-eyed mammals.

In relation to JB's reference above, the "Open Meeting's guy" is just one of 5,000+ advocates and stakeholders who share the conviction that good faith, trust and understanding are paramount elements of moving forward with salmon resource conservation...and we have held that belief from very early on. I belong in the ranks of those thousands.

We greet and applaud the news of the forward movement resulting from the recent Plenary Session, and, like the great majority of stakeholders, are optimistic that "detente" has taken priority over contention and adversarial conflict concerning the resource we all cherish. The adage that "a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step" comes to mind...but each step forward from this point is even more critical than that very moving first effort.

Lorraine Loomis deserves accolades at this point in time. No one can dispute the Tribe's First Nation status, and what they collectively have endured over the generations. She has shown the wisdom of her words, and her presence to display just that during the plenary meeting was beyond lifting.

However, we must collectively face forward and immediately begin the unified campaign to save the fish. It will take a coordinated offensive on many fronts to make things right with our resource--including the participation of ALL those parties dedicated to saving the fish--and no one should be shut out, omitted or excluded from that process.

I'm now saying what many others are putting forth in unison...Tribals, Recs, Commercials, Biologists, Fisheries Managers, Conservationists, Commissioners, Boat Manufacturers and Sales Outlets, Sporting Goods Dealers, Sportsman Group leaders and members, Politicians, Environmentalists...and, most importantly, some of the younger generation(s) who face the loss of what we all have taken for granted.

I was informed just yesterday that a most prominent and respected individual amongst us has concluded that salmon fishing in State waters will come to an end within 10 years. We must take heed of his point of view--there is little time left. Let the Plenary success carry on and move forward...and allow all to participate...

Anglers, commercial fishers, and others interested in salmon in Washington can take part in an informal discussion with state and tribal fish managers on April 3.

Sorry but how does an informal discussion[u][/u] suffice after rejecting transparency in the north of falcon negotiations ?

I thought this was an April fools joke...

This is like getting invited to thanks giving dinner but having to sit at the kids table..

There is no need for informal meetings, especially if the situation is as dire as they say it is... the last time they rang the warning bell we had the Coho season shut down, only to see the tribes have a full on Coho fishery... Why the need for secrecy?

Both managers can be transparent tomorrow if they wanted....
Don't settle for anything less than full transparency.

Your final statement is the truth, the whole truth--and nothing but the truth.

If the Co-Managers would put the fish first, transparency would become a boon to the process--and not the problematic hindrance that's being portrayed.

Put the fish in front of the politics!! Your play, managers!!

Be careful what you wish for. You put the fish first and we close all the marine mixed stock fisheries. We close a lot of the forage fish and rockfish fisheries. Putting the fish FIRST means that by catch and incidental mortality need to go away.

It's like complaining about the complexity of the sport rules. They were/are complex so as to allow the maximum opportunity to fish. If all we cared about was the fish, there would be a lot less fishing.

Ironically, a lot less fishing is exactly where we are, and the further direction we are heading...

Well, not really. We are still fishing mixed stock, still pushing out hatchery fish, and suchlike.

Fish first does not have to mean a closed fishery, unless you don't fish selectively!

Putting the fish first means not targeting ESA listed fish.
Putting the fish first means transparency!

Are you equating by-catch with incidental contact?
Not even close, no comparison!

Why equate the two? one targets for profit, the other incidental contact with minimal mortality while fishing selectively...

Once the upcoming 2018 North of Falcon LOAF goes public, it seems to me that the the devil will be in the details--a simple side-by-side comparison with the previous season(s) will most certainly shed light on this.

A fish, or the ecosystem, does not care how death occurs. Dead fish don't spawn.

There are ways to ensure that, for example, the SRKW get first crack at the fish they need to survive while still allowing salmon fishing.

What we do is compromise. We are willing to accept some mortality as a cost of doing business (C&R wild trout is a great example). But, when we "accept" that cost and the fish still decline then the cost is too high. Until the wild salmon runs show significant increases, the SRKW show significant increase in numbers and body condition we are killing too much of the ecosystem.

We lost our Skagit river cutthroat/gamefish season the last two years for fear we might accidentally hook a coho.

In 2017 the Skagit was open for 45 days in the summer for anglers to try for sockeye and then again in Dec. and Jan. for...? I guess esa listed wild steelhead and bull trout because most other fish are not present in early winter.

There's a lot more to this BS than salt water fisheries...

With NMFS dragging their feet on the Skagit RMP my anadromous angling adventures in WA are about done.

Having a Plenary meeting is the same as a magician saying, "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!" He's already convinced you that he can actually pull it off. The NWIFC laid out a lot of issues that, for all practical purposes are, and have been known for some time. But I would like to draw your attention to the elephant in the room, so to speak. Everybody got all lathered up in rainbows and started singing kumbaya because the tribes met face to face for once and spoke to us like we mattered.

Why is this such a "great leap forward"? Isn't this how Co-management SHOULD of been done all along? Shouldn't the tribes be in attendance at all the public North of Falcon meetings, and shouldn't ALL the North of Falcon Meetings, and ALL meetings where fish and wildlife management is discussed be open?

I find it amusing that so many recreational fishermen gave accolades to the tribes for "allowing us the great privilege" to hear them tell us about all the problems that are facing our fish. (Most of which we caused). Sure, they used words like "trust" and "cooperation", but did they commit anything other than words of encouragement? Did they commit to full and unedited transparency in all matters going forward? Of course not.

I want to remind all of you. This "Plenary Meeting" was a direct result of the Open NOF pressure that we are applying to the NWIFC and WDFW/Commission. It was in the Oct 23 meeting that we insisted WDFW leadership send a letter to Lorraine Loomis insisting on Open, transparent negotiations. It was in that letter that the idea of a Plenary meeting was suggested. WE did not suggest a plenary meeting, nor did we endorse it. (Recall, we did not even get the courtesy of seeing a draft) The idea was entirely, we believe, Ron Warren's. And we think it was done AFTER consultation with the tribes as a solution to break the support for the OPEN NOF MEETINGS MOVEMENT.

The NWIFC jumped on the Plenary meeting because it was the perfect way to "Pull a rabbit out of the hat". And they pulled it off pretty darn well. In one meeting, they fooled a whole lot of people into thinking they are willing to work in full cooperation and build trust, yet actually and yet, still keep their negotiations and deals secret!

Time will tell how far this NEW WAVE of cooperation goes, and how much more the tribes are willing to fully engage with the recreational community. One meeting certainly is a start, but, the very definition of Co-management dictates that this type of exchange should of been going on from the start and should continue from now on.

There should not be a rabbit in a hat in Co-management, the rabbit should be on the table, in plain view, where everyone can see it.

END THE SECRETS IN CO-MANAGEMENT!

Co-Management began in the mid-80s. How have the fish done since then? We began to get ESA listings in the 90s. How many of those stocks/populations have reversed the downward trend and are moving to recovery? Habitat was identified as a problem back then. 25 years later how much has been fixed?

What we are doing, and have been doing, the last 30 years has not worked for the fish, the SRKW, or the fishers (whether Tribal or non-Tribal). If we are serious about restoring the resources and the fisheries we need a different model of what we are doing.

Any supposedly true "Co-Management" has yet to take place--the negotiation table has been disproportionately tilted to one side. Without true co-management now beginning, and then moving forward--nothing will change from the status quo. OPEN THE MEETINGS so that BOTH parties invest in good faith bargaining, establish some common trust, and once again, PUT THE FISH FIRST...

So I am a lurker, but member over many years. I was at the NOF meeting and I would ask:?

So who was there? If not why not. I know that they have been less than acceptable over the years, but I was glad I went last week. It was the most promising meeting I have attended in years. Habitat and working together was the focus from Ms. Loomis and her constituency. I believe it to be an honest cry for working together on an issue that no one organization will accomplish on their own. Give it a chance and warm up dudes (dudettes), or we will be playing a game of who gets to kill the last fish (and we all know who will win that battle). Are the tribes guilty of taking advantage of their position/situation, yes, would we do the same....probably...ask yourself? Holster your pride and your pistol, it may be the only way to make a difference. This all might just be heading in a new and great direction.
K

We have been doping habitat since listing commenced. We absolutely must fix it.

BUT, fixing the habitat is going to do nothing to help the SRKW now. Take out a dam. Fish spawn above it. It is 3-4 years before those fish (Chinook) return. And it will take a while for the river above the dam to stabilize and regrow a riparian zone so fish can flourish. Habitat restoration is a long-term process just to fund and do (and get permits for) and then it has to improve so fish can use it. All this time, the SRKW's continue to starve and abort.

We have gotten into a really deep hole and digging out of it will be difficult. It's nice that everybody's singing the same song but it's not gonna work unless some very significant changes are made in fisheries, some very significant amounts of money are put into habitat today, and work gets done.

Shoot, WA is arguing to the Supremes that we don't need to fix the culverts. And that is one small piece.

No, why would I take advantage just because I had the power to do so...Its called Corruption, that is why they need secret meetings!

Stupid question!