Smalma

You have asked me; "Do you feel that attempting to establish wild salmon populations in upstream areas just as mis-guided as with steelhead?

Smalma, I am not against nor am I opposed to either establishing salmon or steelhead to any "upstream" area for the purpose of natural production. When I was the President of the Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC), we the FOC, was the original group that triggered the upper River restoration program for both Salmon and Steelhead!

During the first 3 years (1991-1993) BPA, FOC, NMFS. USFWS, WDF, WDFW, and USFS all developed a restoration plan called the "Cowlitz Falls Project Fisheries Management Plan" or the (CFPFMP). Have you ever had the opportunity yet to read the "original "CFPFMP" before the new combined wildlife and fishery agencies were cloned together and change it?

The plan took over 3 years to develop and refine, and addressed the restoration of both salmon and steelhead in the upper Cowlitz River, and to lesser degree, the Tilton drainage. Tacoma put up a fit when we originally included that area, because it was "above" the area that BPA was responsible for in the Settlement Agreement with the FOC.

The CFPFMP was and still is a dynamic one that both wild fish avocates and harvest people could both live with. It addresses both "wild", "Natural", and hatchery production. When the final plan came out, the new WDFW got all excited because it was named the "Cowlitz Falls Fish Prtoject Management Plan". The magic word that got them peeing in their shorts was "Management Plan"! They couldn't handle a plan that involved these words unless it was the new WDFW's own "Management" plan, even those many of the people in both agencies fully participated in developing this plan.

The plan was so simple and workable that the WDFW just couldn't stand or handle it, and in June of 1996 had to make up their own version which they now refer to as the;" Cowlitz Falls Anadromous Reintroduction" plan. But like almost everything else that they (WDFW) gets their hands on, they really screwed it up!

The original CFPFMP was workable because it made a "BALANCE" between hatchery fish and wild or natural fish. It allowed them to co exist and still have a fishery for sport fishermen. There was, and still is not any reason in the would that both hatchery stocks and natural stocks could not both share and utilize over 240 miles of the best habitat that is left in our state! That's right, over 240 miles of virgin habitat that is not being used, and they are worried about intermixing the gene pools of "hatchery fish" vs "wild fish".... What joke!

It was all about the hatcheries being cut back and nothing else!

What would they do if the water shed starts pumping out hundreds of thousands of fat health smolts from hatchery shocks? What would they say to all the other BS programs that they have established and are promoting when all these fish can be produced for nothing by nature?

With well over 240 miles of natural habitat, there is no reason in the world why we can't have both hatchery and native fish coming out in large numbers from this area!

I challenge any member on our board or for that matter, WDFW to show us the proof that this would not work!

It's the same old story.....sorry, but its only aout WDFW people loosing their jobs!

Hell, WDF even charged the BPA over $18,000 for them to participate in the CFPFMP. I do not know what WDW charged the BPA, but I would imagine it was close to the same amount!

So when you said; "You mentioned the state "Wild Salmonid Policy" and how it was providing direction for the decision makers. That is precisely why such policies are needed. If you don't like the decisions that are being made based on the policies it may be more productive to work on changing the policies."

Well that is exactly what I am doing now! We had a great CFPFMP that everyone could have lived with and then the WDFW changed "the plan" to meet and support their own internal needs.

Smalma, I have 2 more replys and then I let you off the hook.

1) You said;" Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try."

To bad that the great Director of WDFW (Jeff Koenings) doesn't feel the same way as you do! He went out of his way to assure in the Settlement Agreement that fish ladders would not be readily available for Mayfield Dam. There were no engineering problems with making a workable ladder over Mayfield because it falls within the 140' levels that are very workable for fish. The BIG POROBLEM was that Jeff wanted 15 million dollars of insurance for his hatcheries if within 15 years the bench marks (Which is had personally set) were not met! The ladder issue was a cake walk at Mayfield, but that 15 million dollars that WDFW wants to have will never allow that to happen!


So look at what the WDFW "rats" have done; "e) Within five years of license issuance, the Licensee shall establish an interest-bearing escrow account in the amount of $15 million to contribute to the total cost of constructing volitional upstream fish passage facilities. To minimize administrative cost and allow conservative growth, said escrow account may be held by the Licensee as a separate account (with Licensee being obligated to treat said account substantially similar to an escrow account), and said account may be invested, consistent with investment limitations on public agencies within the State of Washington.

Here's the nail in the coffin!; "h) If within 14 years of license issuance the criteria for volitional upstream passage facilities, described in b), c) and g) above, have not been met and it is determined by the FTC or agencies, and affected Tribes, with the concurrence of NMFS and USFWS, that measures in addition to those provided for in the August 2000 Settlement Agreement are necessary to restore self-sustaining, natural production of ESA-listed stocks in the Cowlitz River basin, and that expenditure of the escrow fund on such additional measures in lieu of volitional upstream facilities is necessary and appropriate to achieve natural stock restoration, consistent with the express purpose of the license and the Settlement Agreement, and with applicable recovery plans for the listed Cowlitz River stocks, the Licensee shall submit to the Commission a plan to abandon volitional upstream passage and expend the funds in the escrow account for the purposes of protecting and promoting restoration and recovery of listed Cowlitz River stocks. The draft plan shall be submitted to the FTC or agencies for 30-day review and comment period"

Now Smalma, what do you think will happen?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And finally, you say:" I'm not sure that your statement sport fisherman will not like the agreement is true. Certainly there are many who do not or will not like giving up any of those hatchery fish to harvest."

2) Well there is one way to find out that answer for sure! Have you ever wondered why our WDFW has never proposed to put that same question on our voting ballots? Then, you and I would all have the same chance to vote on this issue and live with the results of the many! Sounds more then fare to me. . . how about you?


Cowlitzfisherman