So the Directors met and talked about salmon management. 75%-25% is what I see.

What about steelhead? They are a game fish caught in the nets too!

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2020/02_feb/021420.asp

Bass turds.... DIRTY bass turds!

I emailed my reps and senator . I might call the hotline 1.800. 562.6000 to further show this is my belief of this injustice.

Can someone help me understand this sentence in the press release I find particularly troublesome:

"The allocations in Columbia River fisheries refer to the proportion of impacts to wild fish allowed under Endangered Species Act guidelines, not the proportion of overall catch."

My interpretation is the the sporties will be f***ked once again. Am I close to home in deciphering this fuzzy statement?

Recs leverage our impact share into a MUCH bigger retained catch than the mainstem gillnets can because of our lower release mortality rate.

One more thing. The Select areas catch more upriver fish if there is high water.

Bonafide PROOF that Susewind can't be trusted to do right by recs.

Doesn't the BUCK STOP with the Commission? After all, according to the Commissions mandate:

Fish and Wildlife Commission

"The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is the supervising authority for the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife. It consists of nine governor-appointed members serving six-year terms, holding meetings and hearings around the state and offering opportunities for the public to weigh in on fish and wildlife issues."


Isn't time we start holding the Commission accountable for these screw up, and stop giving them a pass. The Commission was formed to be OUR REPRESENTATIVES!

But they delegated their authority on this matter to the director.

Doesn't leave them with clean hands!

If the delegated their authority, and don't like the results, fire the Director. If they keep him, they are approving of the job he's doing. Same as us re-electing the Clowns.

It was one year ago now when a group of "focused and motivated" stakeholders appeared at a Senate hearing to promote their POV re: commercial gill netting on the Columbia, Puget Sound and other viable locations. They braved a snow storm to exercise their legal right to testify, and promote retention of commercial netting in those locations. Their impact was most effective.

The Commissioners had previously put forth their respective position(s), w/two key members abstaining, and failing to go either way regarding support or approval.

In short, the Senate Bill was watered down and amended to an end product that hardly resembled the original content.

We now deal with a Commission composed of four members with a direct or indirect history and/or working relationship with the Tribal and NT commercial netting industry, and one additional member who can best be described as a bobble head. The Commission itself has stood down, and has now formally assumed the Crown of Dysfunction.

The critical numbers continue to decline, and until Rec stakeholders can rightfully and directly participate (or at least be publicly included) in the NOF decision making process...nothing can possibly change.

The Same Old Story is getting really old...pool the collective collaboration of ALL the parties involved--or say good bye to the fish.

Delegating the authority to conduct negotiations DOES NOT remove the responsibility and accountability for those decisions.

This IS THE PROBLEM with the Commission. They let the Director run rabid, and do nothing. They are not the Recreational Anglers representatives in truth. They are nothing but pawns who are played by the whims of those that harvest salmon for profit.

So, let me ask you all these questions.

1. How many of you actually know how many people applied for the last Commission positions?

2. How many of you actually saw the names of everyone who applied, saw their backgrounds and qualifications?

3. Who amongst us attended an open meeting where the candidates were introduced and where we got to ask them questions?

4. How many of you even know how the selection process works, that results in the governor appointing someone who is our representative?

My bet that not any of us...and that is how the game is played.

The Commission doesn't represent us. They represent the groups that were responsible for their appointment.

There are three Commissioners who's terms are set to expire this year.
Anyone want to take a guess on how much WE will be invited in to participate in picking the new Commissioner's?

It would be fitting and appropriate to add...

5. The legal time limit to appoint the last Commissioner, 90 days, was exceeded by far. As a result, would that not make both his appointment and actual placement on the Commission illegal?

In a limited defense of the Commission and Director - they have to make decisions based on what information they get from staff

I must disagree, at least somewhat. First, which staff? The science-based or political appointees? I know, and this was back in WDF, that staff made one set of recommendations and the politicians another (or the Tribes). And guess which one was chosen?

Decisions are, for better or worse, made on a variety of inputs that include biology, law, politics. It is ludicrous to think that the agency will follow the science without consideration of which way the political wind is blowing. And there are a lot of staff, at least in the past, who found the foregoing "amazing". They could not believe that political considerations were even in the discussion.

The problem is that the rec side is fairly dysfunctional. At best, they look a whole lot like the Democratic Presidential Circular Firing Squad Exercise. Recs would rather fight each other than unite; we would rather complain than participate. Look at, even from here, who participates actively in the processes? A few, and most have been in the fight for decades.

The commercials and the Tribes are in this for the long game. Like Grant vs. Lee; attrition will win out.

Bay Wolf and Great Bender posed some questions that, from my perspective as a recent applicant for a Commission seat, need to be answered. If a vacancy occurs, the seat is supposed to be filled within 60 days.

1. I heard 13 to 14 names might have been on the list. I don’t know when they applied. I was told that some names are on pretty much a “standing list” for appointments to Commissions and Boards.

2. Applications were going to close around February 15 per Keith Swenson, Director of the Governor's Office of Boards and Commissions, and a decision was expected to be made "soon".

3. I only saw one application....mine, submitted on February 14 for the "at-large" position.

4. I had follow-up contacts with Mr. Swenson on March 21 and 29 when I was advised that no decisions would be made until after the legislative session was over. The 2019 Legislative session ended April 28. A subsequent contact with Mr. Swenson, on April 2, set up a meeting on April 11 to discuss my application.

5. On April 11, I had a meeting lasting a little over an hour Mr. Swenson at the Batdorf & Bronson Coffee Roasters in Olympia.

6. Subsequent email contacts, asking if decision had been made, with Mr. Swenson were done on May 10, June 7, June 21, July 19, and July 24.

7. On July 24, the Governor's office announced that Molly Linville and Jim Anderson had been selected as the new Commissioners. I never received a contact from Mr. Swenson as to the decision having been made.

If you want to get a sense of the process, here is a link to the Governor’s Boards and Commissions website:

https://www.governor.wa.gov/boards-commissions

I would encourage folks to read through RCW 77 – the Fish and Wildlife statutes.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77

and, in particular, as to the statutes relating to Commission activities, look at:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04

and

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12

The operative word in many of the statutory sections is "...shall..." not "...may...". They have the authority and need to, in my opinion, set down some operational mandates for the Director and for him to pass along to staff as required objectives to be done.

I've been working with the Commission protocols for 50 years. I've seen it work in other states and I've seen some promise in this Commission off and on over the past 20 years.

It is a political process, no doubt about it. Personally, I'd like to see some changes in the statutes as they relate to the Commission selection process. One major change is found in the Colorado statutes (CRS 33-9-101(c)) which reads:

" (c) Of the voting members appointed to the commission, there shall not be a difference of more than one person between those members affiliated with any major political party."

That would/could help remove some of the political pressure. Commissioners should be apolitical. Their first priority should be to the resource. They should not have to be concerned about potential removal should they buck the establishment on an issue.

There are four Commissioners whose terms are up this year. Carpenter on October 31, and Kehoe, Smith, and Graybill on December 31.

Carcassman

I've sat in on a number of WDFW Commission meetings over the past 20 years. In my other life, another 30 years of attending Commission meetings. Generally speaking, most of the decisions are probably the right ones.

I have been a member of three different advisory groups and one legislatively mandated oversight committee. Cumulatively, 18 years of membership. I try to attend public meetings as time permits outside of advisory group meetings.

I have seen presentations made to the groups and the Commission that would appear to reflect staff biases that would then direct decision making toward a specific objective and not necessarily one that is good for the resource or for a user group.

Decision making by the Director and/or the Commission are only as good as the information they get coming up through staff and sometimes the information is skewed.

Thank you, bushbear, for coming forward with the details and particulars related to your application and pursuit of a position on the Commission.

A good many of the regulars on this blog remain convinced that your appointment to the Commission would have provided much needed perspective necessary for truly moving torward conservation of our fisheries resource.

An old bromide puts forth that "If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there..." The political priorities woven through the Commission, AG's Office, WDFW Director and Governor allow for no other path than that followed by those above.

C-man said it best just a few entries above...

As I said, Bushbear, which staff. I Have seen the science skewed so that a preconceived position could be supported. Just because it is "staff" does not mean you aren't getting a desired policy outcome, science be damned.

"My hands are clean!" said Lady Macbeth...

Can anyone tell me what the tangle net mesh size restrictions are for the spring fishery? Are revival boxes required? Is there a maximum soak time? I also wonder, as a suspicious old fishcop, if there will be separate days for Young's Bay and the big river. Without good enforcement, it would be easy for a Young's Bay gillnet to be dropped into the Columbia late at night on a night that the tangle net fishery was open. The size of the mesh in the tangle net is critical. Years back the WDFW idiot Bill Tweit allowed a five plus inch net (basically a Coho net to save the gillnetters money) and more than 20,000 wild steelhead were taken as by catch. And Mr. Tweit ,inspite of the fact that he apparently knows almost nothing about the real effects of gillnets is still in charge of much of the salmon management in the Columbia. Also, are there any observers slated for this season. WDFW goes out of their way to make sure "there aren't enough funds". for observers. I'll shut up. (For a while)

Well played.

The last time a mainstem gillnet fishery on CR springs occurred was April 2016.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...2016_action.pdf

4.25" mesh... 45 minute soak... boat limit of FOUR springers.

What a JOKE!

Looks like there will be a run update? Since the nets are included in this meeting.


https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/CAN/20/200519_hearing_announcement.pdf

I sent this in an email to the Governor's office.

[quote][/quote]
Honorable Governor,

I strongly oppose the proposal to authorize a gillnet fishery for spring Chinook in the mainstem Columbia River, for the first time since 2016. This proposal comes as populations of upriver spring Chinook have plummeted to levels not seen since the 1990's. Also, our state's steelhead are impacted by the method of commercial harvest.

I volunteered for over twenty years at my local schools teaching Aquatic Education. Part of the program was teaching ethics.

I urge you to stop this fishery from taking place.

Warmest regards,
Hans Mak

Got that one Doc, in fact in all matters harvest related the Commission has delegated its authority to the Director. Even the many policies are guidance as they only become binding if put into a WAC.

Looks like they are not going to have a below-Bonneville mainstem gillnet fishery, nor are they going to extend the sportfishery down there.

This make sense to me since they closed the Clearwater due to concerns that there were not going to be sufficient fish for broodstock needs at their hatcheries.

Fish on...

Todd

What mistakenly is called a gill net fishery. Is in reality a 11 hour tangle tooth net fishery. And because of the presence of to many Shad. It would have been hard to release marked Chinook. And impact on summer Steelhead would be minimal in zone 4 and 5. Let not forget that NOAA fisheries issues the permits for a Columbia river spring Chinook fisheries to WDFW and ODFW. And how the two departments kill those fish is up to them. So hook and line pitchfork,dynamite or tangle tooth nets it all the same. Your still killing fish. Both sports and commercials were against the fishery.

I think you meant Zone 4,5. Zone 6 is the tribal fishery above Bonneville.

Sorry about the type O