Drifter -
Please note I said NOF policies - not NOF.

Every year the Commission asks for comments on that policy (C-3608).

The current version for Chinook and coho states -

"•The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas, considering factors such as: the uniqueness of each area; the availability of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season; the desire to provide high levels of total recreational opportunity; and the biological impacts.

•Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries.

•The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Columbia River Salmon Management (POL-C3620) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River salmon fisheries. Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives.

•Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries.

•Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers."

It seems to me a good strategy would be to try to get the "Willapa Bay Framework and the Grays Harbor harvest objectives on the table for discussion and potential modification. If indeed as eyeFISh suggest the commission is aware of the situation and the late modification in the CR-103 that was something other than what was thought to be agreed to we might be able to argue that more detail direction needs to be provide in policy C-3608.

Something more along the Policy guidance for Puget Sound where recreational fishing (and the economic value that produces) is the first priority would be a great start. That obviously would be a tough sell but that is the process that I see has the best chance of developing meaningful changes (from the recreational perspective).


Edited by Smalma (09/16/13 04:11 PM)