RESCIND the WILD STEELHEAD MORATORIUM
Introduction

The public process for the 2004-2006 Sportsfishing Rules Proposals process, carried out by the WDFW, resulted in theCommission adoption of a 2-year, statewide, "Moratorium" on Wild Steelhead harvest, by sportspersons. The resulting public process was widely viewed, by sportspersons, City of Forks, members of the state legislature and the Boldt Case tribes, as being illegal and unethical. The Moratorium generated an immediate response, with a call for strong action from these groups and resulted in the Commission agreeing to revisit this Moratorium for further public review. This public review will provide an opportunity to inform the Commission whether the Moratorium should be rescinded, amended in some way or allowed to stand as is. Public comments may be submitted via e-mail or by letter to the Commission in Olympia. The comments must be received no later than August 25. Personal letters to a Commissioner must be received earlier. In addition, oral testimony may be given to the Commission at the Commission Hearing scheduled for August 28/04, in Bremerton, WA. A decision by the Commisson is scheduled for September 2, 2004, via a telephone conference call.

Background

The public process for the 2004-2006 Sportsfishing Rule Proposals process began with with the WDFW letter to the public of October 23, 2003. Public comments ( letters, e-mail) to the commission had a deadline of December 5/2003. Verbal testimony was permitted at the Commission Hearing held in Port Townscend, Dec.5&6, 2003. Commission consideration and adoption of the 2-year, "Moratorium" occurred at the Commission hearing held in Olympia, Feb.2004. .

It was apparent throughout the rules process, including the adoption of the "moratorium", that it was grossly flawed. The information communicated to the public, in the Oct. 23, 2003 WDFW letter, would have a reasonable person conclude that the process would not consider changes any changes to the yearly, (5) Wild Steelhead, retention. Comments that were provided came from special interest groups that were in contact with certain commissioners. The commission vote was 5:3, in favor of a 2-year Moratorium.

Immediately following adoption by the commission of the "Moratorium", a strong backlash came from sportsmen and the City of Forks-where the rivers in the Fork’s area would be impacted by the Wild Steelhead, harvest closure (Moratorium). Agreement was quickly reached that concluded, the Commission process had deceived the public and was likely illegal. The City of Forks assumed the focal point position for action and the sportsmen assumed a supportive position to the city’s action.


Legal advice, advised Forks to submit a legal petition to the Commission, requesting what amounted to rescinding the 2-year "Moratorium" that had been adopted by the Commission. The City of Forks spent a great deal of their officials time and money to prepare and transmitt the required petition to the WDFW Commission. In June, 2004, the Commission advised Forks officials that they made a decision to revisit the so-called "Mortorium", with an accompanying public process, whereby the Commission would essentially consider either to rescind or retain the Moratorium.

Repr. Jim Buck, from the Peninsula, a stong ally of the sportsmen for many years, closely followed the 2004-2006 Sportsfishing Rule Proposal public process. Repr. Buck and Senator Jim Hargrove, also from the Peninsula, were concerned and disagreed with the Commission’s actions that resulted in the "Moratorium". Repr. Buck and Senator Hargrove, and 16 additional members of the state legislature, informed the Commission by letter that they had: violated the state’s Administrative Procedures Act ; had taken actions that were contrary to state law, expressed in "77"; furthermore, had violated their legislative directive that the commission should attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations. The legislature, further stated, that the WDFW staff and tribal biologist’s position clearly stated that theWild Steelhead populations on many rivers support harvest retention.

The Boldt Case tribes stronghly criticized the Commission for their unilateral actions in adopting the Moratorium. The NWIFC( Northwest Indians Fishery Commission) criticized the Commission for carrying out a process without any consultation with, or agreement of the tribes, as required by the Federal Court Orders in U.S. vs Washington. Furthermore, the NWIFC pointed out that the Commission adopted this Moratorium as a conservation regulation, despite the fact that the WDFW staff and the tribal biologists clearly made it known that it is not necessary for conservation reasons.

The description given this rule "Moratoriuim" is simply a part of ongoing deceit for this rule that is actuallty a Wild Steelhead, harvest closure . Moratorium is defined as a temporary cessation of a dangerous or hostile activity . Obviously, this is not the case here . The WDfW staff and the tribes agree, when the Wild Steelhead populations on a stream exceed the current escapement goals, steelhead may be retained. Some (12) rivers have surplus Wild Steelhead. The reason we have this issue before us now stems from a matter of fish politics, where some Commissioners, responding to an ever increasing high-pressure, from "catch and release" groups, have been decreasing retention limits for Wild Steelhead, in spite of the conservation aspect that permits greater Wild Steelhead retention. The result from this type of fishery policy, is one of ever decreasing fishery opportunities for the average citizen. One commissioner, a leader of the Moratorium effort, said that any revenue lost by the fisherman who wants to retain some fish can readily be replaced by affluent fishers that will fill the gap.

A very large organized effort will be necessary in ordedrto generate sufficient influence that the Commision will rescind the Moratorium, now in place. What follows, are various means we must undertake,with the highest level of participation that we can muster, to favorably influence the Commisssion to rescind the current Moratorium, now in place.

Actions To Rescind Moratorium

There are a number of actions we should take in responding to to the public letter by the WDFW for this public process. The major ones are:

(1) E-mail, letters and petitions to the Commission in Olympia.

(2) Personal letters to Commissioners.

(3) Attending the Commission Hearing in Bremerton on August 28 ( 10 AM). Verbal testimony is recommended but not essential.

(4) Letters to the Editor, are good! Lots of small town papers up here in our area, as well as, sw, WA. They generally allow around 150-200 words max. Don’t overlook Tacoma and Olympia. Seattle may be tough to get one accepted.

Regarding e-mail and letters to Olympia, its fine to simply say that you support the WDFW staff position of rescinding the "Moratorium".

There is a petition being circulated. Get friends to sign it. Run copies and provide them to those that will help.You must get them mailed by Aug.18. If they do not reach the Olympia office by Aug.25, they will not be processed for the Commission.

Again, the Commission Hearing is August 28 in Bremerton at 10AM. You must sign up to testify. You have a maximum of (3) minutes. Even if you decide not to testify, your presence helps. Attend if at all possible!

Address for the letters and petitions: Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; 600 Capitol Way North; Olympia, WA. 98501-1091

E-mail to WA. Fish & Wildlife Commission: Commission@dfw.wa.gov

Commission Hearing: Kitsap Conference Center; Bremerton, WA

Personal Letters to Commissioners: Use the same address as listed above for petitions and letters. The Commission staff will mail it on to the Commissioner of your interest. Likely takes another 5 days to reach the Commissioner.

Commissioners: There are (2) new Commissioners that have been appointed this past year. John A. Hunter 1V, of Cashmere, appointed in July of 2003 and Holly Ledgerwood, of Pomeroy, appointed April 2004. John had been associated with the fruit industry. Holly, an avid hunter and fisher is an educator.

General Information: Some reasons why this Moratorium should be rescinded:

(1) There is no Wild Steelhead conservation problem.The WDFW staff and the tribes have told the Commission this is the situation.

(2) The so called "Moratorium" simplt decreases fishing opportunities for a large number of Steelhead fisherman.

(3) The federal district court approved MSHE (Maximum Sustained Harvest Escapement), following WDFW and tribal agreement. for each of our Steelhead rivers in the Boldt Case Area. Wild Steelhead in excess of MSHE are surplus- available for harvest by the tribes and sportsmen.

The Steelhead Trout Club of Washington is considering an arrangement whereby a bus might be made available from the Seattle region to the August 28, Commission Hearing in Bremerton and return, following the Hearing. At this time, no decision has beem made. If we can sign-up 65 people, the cost could be around $15 each. Probably would leave and return from a Park & Ride station.

Repeating the deadlines:

(1) Petitions and letter responses: mail by August 18th.

(2) E-mail resonses. make by August 2.

(3) Personal letters to a Commissioner by August 13



Questions: Contact John Kelly, Steelhead Chair of the King County Outdoor Sports Council, Ph. (253) 838-6840

E-mail: jksteel1@comcast.net

-------------------------