Ok Todd

I had a little time today to read over what you and have posted. You may or may not be right about; did the Commission "break the law", but in my opinion, they sure did break their own "polices" as stated in the WSP.

Let's look at it one step at a time!

1 ) under Performance Standards it says "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."

Policy wise; that would tell me, that the Commission must review WDFW recommendations on harvest at MSY as stated in the WSP, and must be quick to respond and consider all forms of "harvest" sharing needs among the users groups. A C&R fishery is still a form of harvest because it does reduce the populations of species, by the actions of a certain user group. Even if it is the lesser form of harvest, it's still a harvest on a population of fish. Like they Say, a dead fish is a dead fish.

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.

Policy wise; this would tell me that the Commission must address what the "allowable" harvest impacts levels are for each river unit. It also tells me that they still must be required to maintain an over escapement of wild steelhead as defined the WSP. They are mandated by the WSP to maintain harvest levels at MSY, unless escapement projections fall short. They have not fell short on several rivers.

So far we are not that far apart what the "Commission" is authorized to do.

Number 3 is where you and I have big difference of opinions!
You said;
Quote:
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.
You go on to say this about #3;
Quote:
(3) if desired abundance is not being met, priority will be given to fisheries that are more selective either by using more selective gear or fishing in times/places where there will be less encounters of depressed fish. The final sentence means that non-treaty fishers aren't allowed to catch more than their share just because they use more selective gear types, such as the situation with the Col. R. gillnet fishery.
If the desired abundance (escapement) on several of these rivers is reached and is being met, then the WSP requires that it must be manage for MSY. You say "(2) avoid impacts by eliminating encounters with weak populations" If these stocks are meeting and are exceeding the abundance escapement goals, then #2 does not apply. And now that equation must then be considered by the Commission. When you look at what you have said about #3 "if desired abundance is not being met, priority will be given to fisheries that are more selective either by using more selective gear or fishing in times/places where there will be less encounters of depressed fish.",You can start to see the conflict here (I hope)!

Certainly, even you must admit that several of these rivers did not fall into the category of #3. So now the question becomes; why did the Commission go against their own policy on rivers that have achived their abundance goals?

I then attempted to show you how the Commission has failed to follow their WSP by stating this;

Quote:
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.
Your reply to this was; "Ok, we're missing lots of stuff that comes right before the quoted sections, but we'll work with it...

Management units will be defined in one of many ways, which can be modified if they both agree, escapements will be set at appropriate levels, for long term production that sustains harvest (*this means "commercial harvest"*), recreational opportunities (*this means "recreational harvest"*), and ecological benefits (other ecosystems/animals that depend on salmon being in the river, like eagles and bears). Exceptions to this can be made if there are certain needs of low productivity runs (they can agree to higher escapements or lower harvests if the runs need it).

Again, no application to WSR regulations...it just says how escapements are set, and why they're set."

If you tie this in with what has been stated above, the picture becomes even clearer. The WSR policy is governed by the policy set forth in the WSP. Let's cross each of these bridges before either of us waste anymore of our time or efforts!

Too much, to soon, will not let people see where our differences really are.

Let's take one step- one section at a time!
Your turn laugh

Cowlitzfisherman
_________________________
Cowlitzfisherman

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