Todd

Your answers are the art work of an attoney!

I have been really tied up in trying to prepare my written comments for Tacoma new FHMP! As attorney you above all know the amount times that it consumes. So I will try to quickly answer the question that applies to me.

You say;
If I was standing in your shoes, I too would do whatever I could to discourage anyone or group of people getting together to legally challenge this action.

You say;
I have told you numerous times that it is "my opinion" that the Commissions action to place a state wide band without the science to support the action under the conditions that they did was illegal! It's only my opinion, but it's based on the facts that I have posted. You are free to interpret those facts in anyway that you want to. That's what attorneys are trained do ( he saids it's black, she siad it white, but the attornet will say its gray ) Most of what I have stated if "fact". I guess it's all in how you and others interpret them that gets you so excited.

Everyone can read, and everyone can make up there own minds. If I wasn't so unbelievably wrapped up in Tacoma Cowlitz River relicensing, I would love to take on the Commission on this issue. But as you know, I am going at the Cowlitz twenty four- seven!

Todd
I assume that you must believe that the "Commission" has free will to do whatever they feel like, and there is no "guiding policy" or laws that limit there authority. Correct me if I am wrong, I have always believed that the Commission must follow their own guides lines (WSP) when it come to enforcing the States Policy of the WSP. Am I correct? If that is not correct then I can see why you think that I am wrong.

If so, how could the Commission take the action that they did under these rules in the WSP? Please read them slowly and see if you can see where the commission has error

WSP rules-

Performance Standards

1. Harvest management will be responsive to annual fluctuations in abundance of salmonids, and will be designed to meet any requirements for sharing of harvest opportunity.

2. The allowable incidental harvest impact on populations shall be addressed in existing preseason and in-season planning processes as described in policy number 1.

3. Where a population is not meeting its desired spawner abundance level, the State, in managing the non-treaty harvest, may give priority to non-treaty fisheries that can minimize their impacts on weak stocks and increase their harvest on healthy stocks by: (1) using gears that can selectively capture and release stocks with minimal mortality, or (2) avoid impacts by eliminating encounters with weak populations (proven time/area closures, gear types). This must be done consistent with meeting treaty and non-treaty allocations and in accordance with agreed mass marking policies.

Fish Population Management

Spawning Escapement Policy

2. Policy Statement
The wild populations or management units to which this spawner escapement policy applies will be defined on a comprehensive, statewide, or regional basis, recognizing scientific uncertainty, in accordance with policy statement #1. The parties will review existing court orders, joint agreements, and management plans to determine if it is agreed whether modifications are necessary to be consistent with the goals of this Policy. Within this context, sufficient escapement of appropriate naturally spawning fish will be provided to encourage local adaptation and maximize long-term surplus production that sustains harvest, and to provide for recreational opportunities and ecological benefits.4 Exceptions to this general policy may be developed on a regional basis through agreement of the Department and affected Tribes to provide for recovery and rebuilding of wild stocks or where natural productivity is low.

Performance Standards

1. In each watershed region, for each species, populations and/or management units to which MSH management will apply shall be identified and the pertinent management agencies shall establish escapement goals designed to achieve MSH. MSH shall be calculated by using long-time series of accurate spawner and recruit statistics for each population. When such statistics are not available, MSH may be calculated by using historical production, habitat availability, or the best available methods for calculation.

2. The State and Tribes will seek agreement on the total escapement rates, escapement levels, or escapement ranges that are most likely to maximize long-term surplus production for wild populations or combinations of wild populations or management units. These rates, levels, or ranges will be based upon achieving MSH and will account for all relevant factors, including current abundance and survival rates, habitat capacity and quality, environmental variation, management imprecision, and uncertainty, and ecosystem interactions.

3. For other resident and anadromous trout and char, managers may employ wild fish release and other approaches that can maintain high abundance as agreed upon in watershed or sub-regional management plans that may be developed between the Department and the affected Tribes after consultation with affected stakeholders and pursuant to applicable law and court orders. Where an affected Tribe has not chosen to participate in such management, the Department may continue to rely on the escapement approach for wild managed populations contained in A Basic Fishery Management Strategy for Resident and Anadromous Trout in the Stream Habitats of The State of Washington adopted in 1986.

4. It will not be necessary to physically measure spawner abundance for each and every stock, though every stock will need to be covered by the inventory process. Index stocks that are typical of stocks within an area may be used to estimate abundance for the entire area. Surrogate measures such as standing stocks, random samples, stock composition or other measures may be substituted for actual measures of spawners. Evidence of the utility of such surrogates will need to be established for their use.5

5. If spawner management goals are not achieved for three consecutive years, or if the five-year moving average of spawner abundance falls below 80% of the goal, a management assessment including all factors responsible for the failure to reach this goal (e.g., forecast harvest rate estimates, environmental variation or spawner enumerations, appropriateness of spawner abundance goals, loss of habitat quantity and quality) will be completed within six months to determine the cause(s). The Department and affected Tribal parties will cooperatively design and implement appropriate actions to return spawning levels to, or above, the goal. Actions will include any necessary measures to meet the goals of this Policy.

Like I said, If I wasn't so tied up in the Cowlitz; it would be fun to take issue with their decision. The ground is laid out in what is stated above in the WSP. If the Commission must abide by these rules, it is still my opinion that they have acted illegally.

Obviously, you would not encourage people to read it anyway other then the way that you would like them to. People can read, and people can draw their own conclusions.

One thing that I have leaned over the years of posting on this board is birds with feathers always stick together!

Apparently no one has posted the minutes of that meeting, our I may have overlooked them in the hundreds of postings. But if they where posted, we could see what science was used to make the decision and then we could all see if it was made for political reasons.

Todd if you can't see why I believe that the Commission acted illegally after reading the above policy in the WSP, we are worlds apart! I guess if the Commission has "no rules" then you are correct and I am misreading the WSP. I know of no commission that could have such unlimited power in our state. What rules do you propose that the Commission must follow if not the above WSP rule that are listed above?

Cowlitzfisherman