I've been looking for an electronic copy of the WDFW's "Green Sheet" since this topic was started... this is the closest thing to it, perhaps this will shed some light:

----------------------------
The background behind the current regulation and potential implications for changing it, is presented below. I only address daily salmon fishing trips into Canada from Washington ports, because it is the circumstance that was responsible for the original restriction on landings - a circumstance that, in the Departments view, continues to warrant the presence of this regulation.

The development of this regulation rests on several issues. When Washington recreational regulations became increasingly restrictive to address Puget Sound coho salmon conservation problems, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not implemented similar regulations in adjacent waters. As a result, we began witnessing alarming circumvention of our regulatory intent by recreational fishers. In some instances anglers could fish under less restrictive bag limits in Canadian waters with Canadian licenses. Many anglers took advantage of this opportunity - or falsely claimed that they had fished in Canada. During the early 1990's the Canadian bag limit for coho salmon was three fish. Patrol Officers and fish sampling personnel documented many instances where anglers landed three fish said to have been caught in Canada and then landed an additional two fish taken from Washington waters. Also, when particular fishing areas were closed, anglers were simply buying a Canadian license, crossing over to Canadian waters (or saying they had crossed into Canadian waters) and landing fish back into the closed Washington port, reporting that they had fished in Canada. In some cases, these Washington closures had occurred as a result of specific catch quotas being reached. Increased angler interest and catches in Canadian areas right across the border potentially resulted in the conservation intent (or in some cases treaty Indian allocation requirements) of our regulations not being met.

An example of this circumstance was the 1993 increase in cross-boundary fishing trips coming into Neah Bay from Canada - a total of 40,000 trips compared to 16,000 in previous years. Violations were already at record highs. Records indicate that 48 closed season and 150 over limit citations were issued in one year (1991 season) by a single enforcement officer stationed in the area. All of these arrests were related to the anglers ability to "claim" that the fish were caught in Canadian waters. From an enforcement perspective, opposing cross boundary regulations provided for wholesale poaching. This scenario was not acceptable, and if left unchecked, would have required increasingly restrictive regulations throughout Puget Sound to compensate for the increased impacts on Puget Sound-origin coho stocks.

The Department consulted with the Attorney General's Office and received a formal, written opinion that the Department had the authority to restrict recreational landings of fishers in Washington ports who had fished in Canadian waters. The result is the rule noted below, requiring that any salmon landed from Canada meet current salmon regulations for the Washington port of landing.


WAC 220-56-156 Landing Canadian origin food fish and shellfish. It is unlawful to land in any Washington state port shellfish or food fish taken for personal use from Canadian waters unless the person landing the shellfish or food fish possesses a Canadian sport fishing license and catch record, if one is required, valid for the period when the shellfish or food fish were taken. Salmon taken for personal use from Canadian waters and landed at a Washington port must meet current salmon regulations for that port. At the time the Neah Bay and the Strait of Juan de Fuca fishing area were the most problematic because they had relatively more closures in place, combined with high success and angling effort occurring across the international boundary. Since then, however, Puget Sound Chinook have been listed under ESA and all recreational fishing areas have been increasingly restricted during significant portions of the year, including the San Juan Island/northern boundary area.

The impact of repealing salmon landing limitations, or making exceptions for certain areas, would be to compromise our regulatory intent to meet current conservation objectives. Every year our biologists try to develop regulations that will help us meet conservation goals. For example, it is assumed that closures in Washington waters will directly result in savings of fish and impacts on depleted stocks. As discussed above and illustrated by the problems we had during the early 1990's in Neah Bay, if landings from Canada are allowed during closed periods or with more liberal bag limits during open Washington periods, the intent of our regulations is compromised.

For instance, in 2001, the salmon harvest plan agreed to by the state and tribes - and "blessed" by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)- reflected a very difficult and delicately balanced outcome in meeting our federal "take prohibition exemptions" for Puget Sound Chinook. In other words, our fisheries plan can only have so much of an impact (such as incidental / accidental take while pursuing other species) on these listed fish. The final plan represented a successful effort to save a handful of mid-Hood Canal origin Chinook (that are listed under the Endangered Species Act). Needed savings on this population of fish to come into compliance with NMFS "take prohibitions" came hard. The expected exploitation rates on various Chinook populations was based on a specific assumption of impacts that would occur in Canadian fisheries - and this assumption did not forecast an increased effort/catch that might result from a daily flow of Washington anglers. Now after this plan has been struck, a relaxation of the Canadian salmon landing rule that would cause an increase of effort across the border and increase exploitation on Puget Sound Chinook stocks (even tenths of a percent) would create a significant problem with our overall management plan. If resource managers had anticipated this increased effort and impact during the North of Falcon process, they would have responded by further reducing fisheries, potentially throughout Puget Sound.


In addition to this basic, domestic conservation problem, U.S. and Canada establish bilateral agreements to limit catches of certain species in various areas through the Pacific Salmon Treaty process. This is currently the case for Chinook, and soon will be for coho. A shift in recreational fishing effort between the two countries likely will be viewed as subverting either countries fishing opportunities and/or management flexibility. For instance, when our policy advisors recently reviewed the Canadian salmon landing issue with Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian representatives expressed a high level of sensitivity. Objections were related to any action taken by the U.S. that would be construed as U.S. fishers "raiding" Canada's catch "allowances" on Chinook established under the Pacific Salmon Treaty - limits that were established primarily to protect southern U.S. Chinook. Another Canadian concern is associated with the implementation of an increased Chinook minimum size limit in the Strait of Georgia to provide additional protection for Nooksack spring Chinook. This action was unpopular with Canadian fishers, and the idea that Washington would allow an increase of daily boat trips into these same areas during closed Washington seasons raises a question in DFO's mind about how genuine Washington's concern was for increased Chinook protection in the Strait of Georgia and eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. DFO officials also harbored concern that Canada was not deriving economic benefits if anglers were simply crossing the border and returning without landing on Canadian soil and spending money.

Once new effort/catch rate caps are established under the Treaty's coho annex, Washington would have the same concern if daily boat traffic and Canadian anglers fished in U.S. waters on Washington's "share" of impacts on critical Thompson coho, a week fish run that may limit the prosecution of boundary area fisheries in the near future.

According to Department Policy Personnel, Canada has expressed an interest and willingness to strive to achieve consistency of sport fishery regulations on each side of the border to minimize potential landing conflicts and public confusion in regulatory intent.

With respect to current fishing activity, enforcement staff have actively been enforcing the Canadian caught fish landing restriction and I do not believe there are any significant levels of illegal salmon landings occurring when Washington closures are in place. However, officers have encountered significant interest and questions from recreational anglers about fishing for Chinook in Canada waters ("where the fishing is good"), and believe that a relaxation of the regulation would in fact generate a significant amount of transferred effort from Washington to Canada.

A relaxation of the Canadian salmon landing restriction should be expected to reduce our ability to enforce current regulations. Dockside enforcement is a primary tool for enforcing recreational rules. With an opportunity for anglers to land presumed Canadian fish caught under different regulations, enforcement then necessarily shifts to boat work. The Neah Bay example above indicates the type of routine violations that officers encountered in this circumstance in the past. While we do have an important, on-water enforcement capacity, it is fairly limited when looking at the total geographic area in Coastal and Puget Sound waters and considering the fact that numerous recreational and commercial enforcement priorities exist for salmon, crab, marine fish and other shellfish. We have a priority need to enhance current enforcement capacity, especially with the increased risk from depleted species, not reduce it. In my view, the presence of a situation that provides unharnessed opportunity to circumvent regulations is valid reason enough to implement additional safeguards to allow for fish management strategies to work.


Even with a single landing point like Neah Bay, the fishing area is very large and boats can run a long distance from port. It would be very difficult to use on-water surveillance as the only enforcement mechanism. At the same time, as outlined above, we do not want to encourage day trips into adjacent Canadian waters to circumvent the current fish management and conservation strategy.

While this discussion relates to the current rule restrictions on salmon, you should understand that similar issues likely will develop with other marine fish as Washington continues to implement fishing restrictions in its waters to address depleted stock status for several fisheries. Examples can be found in several rockfish species that are currently declared to be "over-fished" by the Pacific Fisheries Marine Management Council.
Disparities in regulation intent between the two countries likely will result in a need to restrict landings of Canadian marine fish into Puget Sound and Coastal ports in order to ensure the conservation intent of Washington's fishery plans can be met. The exception to this picture is halibut, where landings of Canadian caught halibut are specifically planned and accounted for under current, bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Canada.

The Department is aware that constituents would favor some clear provisions to allow vacationing boaters to bring salmon back home that are legally caught in Canada during a trip of some duration. However, the trick is to accomplish this in a way that does not result in increased impacts in Canadian fisheries that result in a further need to restrict fisheries in Washington.

In answer to your question on how to change this rule, the Department would need to be given direction by the Commission to consult with constituents and Canadian, tribal and federal fish managers. If a rule change could be recommended that is consistent with the salmon conservation needs, the Department would bring it forward as a permanent rule proposal. The scope of a potential recommendation for the Commission's consideration likely would be limited to some accommodation and process for vacationing boaters to bring Canadian caught salmon home to Washington by boat. The Department has already modified Washington landing requirements for bottom fish caught in Canada to ensure consistency with current conservation needs (such as yellow-eye rockfish). This has resulted in more restrictions. The Department also is pursing discussions with Canada to seek more consistent regulations in Washington and Canada boundary area recreational fisheries. Relaxation of the landing law would negatively impact those goals.

Due to all of the interests at stake, our position has to be that we will continue to vigorously enforce this regulation.
--------------------------

Hope this helps.
-N.