Originally Posted By: Larry B
Originally Posted By: BEANCOUNTER
I know what the answer is, any fishing over ESA listed stocks, blah, blah, blah has to be approved by NOAA, blah, blah, blah...I go back to the fact that WDFW knew this outcome was a possibility and did not have a back-up plan to address this potential outcome. We have to remember that not only were salmon fishermen let down, but so were warmwater fishermen.


Yup, the regs are Federal and your fishery was collateral damage. Not sure what backup plan WDFW might have had to mitigate the warmwater impact.


let me preface this with the fact that it isn't your or my job to come up with a back-up plan for this case, there are folks that get paid to do that. In fact, you and I pay them with the fees we are charged for our fishing licenses. That being said, here you go:

1. Have an ESA impact % for the warmwater fishery on Lake Washington and Sammamish built into their models to account for the single encounter with an ESA listed fish by a bass fisherman skipping docks


2. I do not follow the NoF process beyond what I read here and other message boards, but as I recall, there was some anticipated tension going into the talks as returning number projections were [Bleeeeep!]. At that time, how about chatting with NOAA or whoever about how to keep specific fisheries open if crap hit the fan and a deal couldn't be struck with the natives.

3. Make fisherman (all fisherman, not just salmonid chasers) aware of the potential outcomes of the NoF process, ALL outcomes. How is this a back-up plan? Well, if I were to have known that taking my kids perch and bass fishing in lake Washington this spring/summer/fall was in jeopardy, I would have become part of the process. And not just myself, but all of the hardcore bassers and panfisherman (there are a few of them around) would have had a chance to voice their concerns. I am not saying this would have made a difference, but at least we would have had an opportunity to speak-up.

I still don't get how these bass are so awful that limits can be 100% lifted on one body of water with ESA listed fish (Columbia river and its tribs), but in another the risk of an encounter exceeds the "benefit" of having a fishery that removes a certain number of those deemed predators. This is more rhetorical than anything as I know why the Columbia thing happened...Sorry if I seem like I am ranting, but this sucks...and sucks for everyone.