Thanks so much for the detailed summary, Larry. Excellent.
Questions were raised as to why the Southern U.S. (SUS) is being more severely restricted that Northern fisheries (which includes current negotiations with Canada of the Salmon Treaty)
IIRC there's a fair amount of "horse trading" in these negotiations, correct? I think I heard that one of the reasons Columbia river chinook bounced back is because of a deal with BC to lay off them a bit (I think if we laid off fraser sockeye or something)
1. AAG Grossman briefed on the legal aspect of the "secret" nature of the negotiations leading up to the Plan saying confidentiality was dictated by the Federal judge.
This seems like an egregious dereliction on the AAG's part. I listened to the last conference call and Grossman was basically exclaiming "GOTCHA" to the Commission. I envisioned him tapping his fingers together and cackling diabolically.
Instead of performing olympic-level legal gymnastics to cut the public out of the process, he *COULD* have been doing the same to make sure the public was INCLUDED. The AG is after all the "people's lawyer".
First Amendment: "...right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I'm sure Grossman would scoff at the assertion what he did was uncontitutional, but I THINK the spirit of of the 1st amendment was pretty clearly violated.
2. I believe it was AAG Grossman who took exception to the contention that only 11 Stilly fish would have been saved had the Plan been applied to the 2017 season. But that person did not say how many fish the after-the-fact modeling (and such modeling only occurred after the Plan was signed) would have saved.
Not sure if it was the same person, but the Bham PSA president testified that a complete sport closure of area 7 (summer/winter fisheries occupying #3 and #4 the stilly impact list) for the 2016/17 season would have saved only 3.4 stilly chinook. I couldn't believe that, but it was verified by WDFW.
Closing one of the most popular, productive, economically valuable, beautiful etc etc marine areas WOULD SAVE ONLY THREE AND A HALF FISH.
3. During the afternoon Staff briefing it was Commissioners McIssac and Carpenter who asked the most pointed questions. Their background in complicated fisheries issues was apparent and a true value to the process. Thank you both!! And Governor Inslee - be sure to re-appoint Commissioner Carpenter!!
Yeah McIsaac is awesome - I am very impressed.
4. It was stated that NOAA is not concerned about economic impacts.
Not terribly surprising, but it's it just adorable that NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce?
And I find it baffling that the fishing economy is NOT a factor for them. At the very least, the seafood market is a pretty big part of the picture is it not?
6. There was also one comment to the effect that it would be recreational fishers taking the brunt of SUS restrictions. Does that mean that the tribes will be fishing (mostly non-selectively) even if we don't have a season? Staff would not confirm assertions that the Plan will under certain conditions (such as now) result in a total closure (or at least the State's) of salmon seasons. They simply couldn't say those words - kind of like Fonzie (Happy Days) not being able to use the word "mistake." I recall that when pushed Staff used a term like "potential significant impacts." Paint your own picture.
I LOVE the Fonzie similie
In the last conference call Kyle Adicks did say out loud that if the plan had been used as a guideline for 16/17 that area 7 would likely have been totally closed. Can't take that one back Kyle.
Remember the vociferous backlash in 2016 when the Tribes went ahead and fished before an NOF agreement was reached (and recs were off the water)? I think that would pale in comparison to this scenario. Or would it. Sportfisherman haven't been able to galvanize too well around much, so I'm not sure why I think this would be different. We've been taking a slow-motion beatdown for ages. We might just peter out with a whimper.
7. There was a push to have the unofficial Plan utilized for 2018 and probably 2019 because NOAA's process probably won't be completed prior to those seasons.
Push by who? That's upsetting.
Previous Topic
Index
