Cohoangler

Let me attempt to answer your questions as best as possible, in the order that you have asked them. First you asked; "The WDFW/NMFS/Tribes have the authority manage the fisheries resources of the state of Washington. As anglers, we don't always agree on the management priorities outlined by these agencies". For the first 4 years, the Yakima Nation did not give a tinkers dame about the Cowlitz, until TACOMA arranged a private secret meeting with them because the Cowlitz Indian Tribe has from day one, demanded volitional fish passage (fish ladders) over the dams. From day one, NMFS representatives did not get along with the Cowlitz Tribe. But they (NMFS) did suck up to the Yakima's.

Did you know that the Yakima's Indian Tribe never even protested Tacoma's original Cowlitz license? But the Cowlitz Tribe did. They have have been at it since the early 1950's! And they have always been there on the side of the fish's best interest. If any tribe has a right to harvest, it is the Cowlitz Tribe! But Tacoma was smart, and decided to play the Yakima against the Cowlitz Tribe.

Question #2; "You seem to disagree with the direction taken by this group. That's okay. Disagreement and discussion is appropriate in any public forum where important issues/resources are at stake. However, you seem to disagree with certain folks without saying who they are, why you disagree, or how you think things ought to be done. Some additional information on your part would be helpful" OK, I will do the best that I can with my answer to your questions. First, some of these people are members of this board, and I see no reason to attack them personally by naming them. Secondly, I know them personally, and I highly respect their opinion, even those it is different then that of my own. They basically are representatives of either the state or federal agencies. That in its self tell us a lot (read their names)!

Some members of that group were supported financially during the relicensing process and we (CPR-Fish) were left on the side lines because we would not suck up to Tacoma, or American Rivers (AM), and Trout Unlimited (TU). Basically they cut off our use of the "technical advisor" and denied us the opportunity to either ask for, or request any extremely important studies, that in my opinion would have changed the "Settlement Agreement" in its final form. There is an accent word that is commonly used for such services, but this is not the place to use it.

It took and official request and petition to FERC by CPR-Fish ( I know, becuase I wrote it) before FERC was forced into the position that that they HAD TO cut a deal with American Rivers, and Trout Unlimited to allow us to once again use the "technical advisor". The glitch was that we had to run our study requests through American Rivers first before it could get approval and the settlement agreement was almost a done deal at that time.

Do you know what the term "Never bite the hand that feeds you means"? They did! Do you really think that AM and TU would insult Tacoma and cut off their own gravy train money? It sounds like you have been around this game for some time now, so make your own conclusions.

I will not say who is making the decisions now for these 2 groups, but I will tell you who the representatives were during this relicensing process. The person who was representing AM during the time of the settlement agreement was Mr. Rob Masonis. The person, who was representing TU at that time, was Bill Robinson. I do not know if these same persons are the ones who are making all the decisions now, but if you read the minutes, you can make that decision for yourself. Your third question is a good one. And I do have an answer for you! You said; "As you know, the fishery management agencies are required to manage for the long-term good of the resources, not necessarily for the users of that resource (i.e., recreational anglers such as you and I). That is true Cohoangler, but Washington state law also mandates that WDOE (another state agency) must "under the current law, Ecology has a duty, under the anty-degrad action standard, to protect that existing, beneficial uses, absent any legislative amendments to the contrary. To read the standard any other way would effectively negate the policy of the protecting all existing beneficial uses… without further degradation which would interfere with or become injurious to the existing beneficial uses… "WAC 173-201-070 ((1)." Now what does that tell you about recreational fishing on the Cowlitz?

Your following question was; if the agencies are putting other interests ahead of the fish resources or are letting Tacoma Power roll over them, then please point out specifically where this is happening so we can join you in protesting those actions. Cohoangler, I hope that this same answer will answer your above question too!

And your final question was; "Now that the licenses have expired, we are left with trying to pick up the pieces and restore whatever is left of a once beautiful and productive river system. Dam removal would be nice but that ain't happening. So, there isn't much there to work with and I would like to think the settlement agreement provides a lot more protection and mitigation than has been present since the projects were built"

Cohoangler, who is this "we" stuff? The only players now are CPR-Fish and Friends of the Cowlitz and The Cowlitz Indian Tribe. There isn't anyone else. We are picking up the pieces that the agency bureaucrats have left behind in their half @ss settlement agreement. Have you really read the Settlement Agreement in its entirety yet? If you have, please tell me and this board what are its great benefits to assure that the Cowlitz will ever recover?

If you have any specific questions about the Settlement Agreement, I would be more than happy to discuss each issue in front of this board with you. Thanks for your concern, and I hope that that I have answered all of your questions.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????