At a recent WDFW commission meeting a couple of the commissioners made a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of public testimony from the assembled crowd. The members of the commission essentially said that they do not make decisions based on economics. So no matter how much the sports fisherman spends on fishing and no matter how much more money sports fishing brings in to the state than the commercials do, the commission is MANDATED BY STATE LAW to ignore all of the economic data and support commercial netting.

Boy, that explains a lot! What exactly is written in state statutes that requires this?

I'd be interested in knowing what would need to be changed!

Bob

They are right! We need to get off our butts and change the law if we ever expect to see things change!

This what the law states:

RCW 77.04.012
"Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property

Cowlitzfisherman <img border="0" alt="[santa]" title="" src="graemlins/santa.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[santa]" title="" src="graemlins/santa.gif" />

Perhaps something for a court interpretation??

"In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. "

"fishing industry" ... hmm, that could mean several things!

Any thoughts on whether it would be possible to challenge things on that basis.

Certainly all the sports shops, area tourist-dependant businesses, guides and such qualify as a "fishing industy" !

Allright, Grandpa! Now you've started another fine mess! BIG EXPERT!!! Are we going fishing or just going to sit at home in front of the box or what?

<img border="0" alt="[santa]" title="" src="graemlins/santa.gif" />

Merry Christmas to all.

Ok..after you all enjoy the hoildays with your families and enjoy some time on the water with your fising buddies, think about joining a group that does some good for your sport. Check out the Recreational Fishing Alliance and Puget Sound Anglers to name a couple. Fishermen don't like politics BUT they sure have strong opinions about their sport. The problem is that we are a disorganized lot. We just want to fish and don't like it when some poilitician who doesn't even own a fishing rod (Gary Locke?) sets a policy or makes a law that screws us over. The governor (Gary Locke) appoints the WDFW commissioners who in turn preside over rules and regs that affect us in a big way. Since a majority of these commissioners feel that they have a strong mandate from the legislature to provide a "viable commercial fishery" regardless of what the impacts might be on the majority of fishers (you) then we have a BIG problem. So go to a commission meeting and listen for yourself, sign up to testify before the commissioners...give your opinions. When we show up in numbers they freak out and sometimes try to shut us down..but they can't. We are the largest group with the smallest voice. That voice needs to be heard more often and much louder. So get involved and get your strong opinions in front of the people who are setting your seasons and closing your rivers. The tribes and commercials are in their face and in the legislature and you can count on that 24/7.

Woodchuck..welcome aboard ...I think I know your secret identity So I know that you are the biggest friggin expert of all time. And , of course, I know that we are going fishing soon....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cowlitzfisherman:
[QB]Bob

That is a great question! How can all of the "groups" of sport fishermen ever get together? How many times have we "screwed" ourselves up already? We can't even agree on catch and release, and the state agency; WDFW knows it!

CFM-

FISHING AND CONSERVATION GROUPS AGREE
TO UNITE TO WORK TO SAVE STEELHEAD

November 29, 2002

Officials of about 30 recreational fishing and conservation organizations met November 23 in Seattle and agreed to continue to work together for the preservation of steelhead.
They formed committees to focus on hatcheries, habitat, harvest, the Endangered Species Act, education, enforcement, research and Atlantic salmon net pens. The committees are to produce short position papers for distribution to the 70 attendees by mid-February. Attendees came from Northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.
The attendees voted unanimously to meet again in May for what the sponsoring Wild Steelhead Coalition called Steelhead Summit 2. The nine-hour meeting was at the Waterfront Activities Center at the University of Washington.
Goals of the meeting were to form a powerful political voice for positive changes in the status of steelhead, develop an action plan to solve problems negatively affecting steelhead, develop strategies to require the use of modern science in fisheries management decisions, promote more strict angling rules and regulations and to take political action to bring about these changes.
Groups taking part included Federation of Fly Fishers Steelhead Committee, Washington Trout, Trout Unlimited, Washington Fly Fishing Club, American Rivers, Native Fish Society, Northwest Women Fly Fishers, Steelhead Society of British Columbia, British Columbia Federation of Drift Fishers, Puget Sound Anglers, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Izaak Walton League, North Umpqua Foundation and Steamboaters, plus numerous individual clubs representing specific geographic areas.
For further information contact Jack Berryman, president of the Wild Steelhead Coalition, at 425-821-1774. The coalition's mailing address is 218 Main St., #264, Kirkland, WA 98033.

Before I provide my thoughts on this can someone please tell me who in the State of Washington is responsible for protecting fish and their ecosystem under both the state and federal endangered species acts?

Is it WDFW?

You guys should read this before jumping to conclusions about WDFW and sport fishing economics:

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/pubaffrs/adding_it_up.htm

It's too bad Tim Eyman isn't a fisherman. He would have an inititive to take our money back from the General Fund and put it back where it was, all going to the fisheries. He would unite most of us and together we would put the economic presure on them, maybe by not buying a license in the spring. If a couple of us don't purchase a license no big deal. Just think what would happen if we all didn't purchase one.

Man, is the hypocrisy deep on this thread! Double standards, anyone??
We've got to unite fishing groups? Like 30 groups aren't enough for starters? Even more were invited but a few, like Friends of the Cowlitz, didn't even respond back with a "no thanks!" Is that you, CFM?? I guess not, since you are so ready to offer your time, efforts and money. As long as certain major groups aren't involved? Who is "AM," by the way??
Sorry, coulda sworn you said we should forget our personal battles. Really?
Now... let's get this straight: the governor is a loser because he doesn't own a fishing rod, but we sure could use Tim "free lunch" Eyman on our side? Gawd, puleeeze!
Yes, fish management has become political, and that includes the F&W Commission, no matter who the governor is!
And YES, we sportfishers DO have to unite, so we can bargain instead of beg. Are you helping or harming that effort???
Steelhead Summit 2 is tentatively scheduled for May 2003. If your group wants an invitation, just reply here with your contact info.

United we bargain, divided we beg!

What needs to be changed is the requirement for the State to provide a "viable commercial fishery". I wonder what the population of Washington was when this requirement was penned?

Western Washington now has a dense population with a lot of sportsmen. This is NOT SE Alaska!

Spawnout, nobody said that the State was unaware of the $$ sportfishing creates. What was said was that the State feels that they are required by law to disregard that data when making decisions regarding sportfishing.

If you had over $135,000.00 in your account and your largest donation given to that date was $100.00, what the hell were you going to do with that pile of cash? It takes a quorum of board members to vote a donation--- so I take it yours was the only dissenting vote. It's sad when we are not party to discussions held in private, but perhaps your views were already known as it appears you don't hold much of what you think in reserve. We [ I am a board member of the Wild Steelhead Coalition] invited groups such as NSIA, PSA [ one side of the harvest issue ] to Washington Trout and American Rivers [ the other side of the harvest issue. So it appears to my narrow little mind that you broke your own law about being uninformed.
Richard Hunt
aka Jerry Garcia
Secretary WSC

You guys may want to take a look at what the hunters in this state are doing RIGHT NOW, before you start fragmenting groups any more than they already are. Washingtonians For Wildlife Conservation is a political action group that takes on anti-hunters either in court or in the legislature. The group has one goal, raise $ to fight the battle! LEGAL BATTLE!!Individuals and groups can become members, and groups have a WWC rep come in at their meetings and raise funds. WWC also has their own fund raising meetings. The group is just forming, but have been received very well by all types of hunting groups that are almost as diverse as fishing groups. Until fishermen take note of HOW to do this, and figure out what battle is worth fighting, we will be a big mess. The issue is NOT the closures. The issue is NOT the nets! These are simply the outcome of the PROBLEM. The problem is our STATE LAW and until we get that changed, things will only get worse. Maybe we should stop trying to put bandaids on all the bleeders and get down to business. The commision was right. They can't take economics into account in the way that we would like them to. British Columbia had the same issue. They got it together and CHANGED THE LAW. Last time I checked the people have the power to do that. Go ahead and toss some rocks at me for posting this! That does not change the fact that we are worse off now than we were 20 years ago and the downward spiral is STILL happening. Take a look at what you are trying to fix. Is it the problem or is it the result of a larger problem. Hunters are getting it together. I am one of them. Hope you guys can put aside your issues long enough to just take a look at this. It will change things for hunting. Do you really want to change things for fishing?

Good question Richard!

"$100.000, what the hell were you going to do with that pile of cash? I will tell you what "the hell" we were supposed to do with it. We, meaning the FOC at that time was orinigally formed to fight Tacoma Power and to make Tacoma meet its 1967 salmon mitigation agreement and to see that both Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams had fish ladders. The money was being saved to take on Tacoma Power when they applied for their "new operating" license. That was the "original purpose" why the Friends of the Cowlitz were established for in 1988. It was our only hope to assure that the mitigation agreements and fish passage issues would be met in their new license.

Tacoma spent well over 12.5 million dollars in getting their new operating license; our messily $135,000 wasn't even pocket change to Tacoma Power! I truly believed that we could have been able to truly change what was done in the 2000 Settlement Agreement IF we could have afforded to have "hired" more attorneys. The FOC only had one attorney who volunteered his time to help us fight Tacoma Power. He was good, but his time was his money, so you can see the writing on the wall. That's why we needed to guard that $100,000. egg!

On to the board issue. We had 16 BOD when the problem occurred. Only 3 knew that the funding issue was going to be brought up at that meeting (it was their little deal). It was not even on the Boards agenda for that night. It was one of those things that should have NEVER occurred! I would have not had any problem if all the FOC BOD had been informed that this issue was going to be brought before it so that each board member could voice their opinion on the issue. That did not happen!

It's kind of funny in a way, because the person who they sent the $2000 quite one week after receiving that $2000 donation and ran off with all of her accounting records that would have shown where that $2000 really went to. Last time I heard (about 6 years ago) the Attorney General and PDA were still trying to get a hold of those records.

Finally, in my opinion, your last statement; "the other side of the harvest issue. So it appears to my narrow little mind that you broke your own law about being uninformed." sound pretty lame to me and is nothing more than a "cop-out"! Do you really believe that it was everyone else's responsibility to make them be self "informed" so that it would relieve your group from their responsibility? That kind of sounds like the same crap that happen at the FOC board meeting 6 years ago doesn't it. I guest by going with your way of thinking; the other 7 board members that were not there that night should have also known that $2000 of their funds were going to be given away without notice.

One last thing, I was not the only "descending vote"; it was 7 to 2

Good luck with your group in the coming New Year!

Cowlitzfisherman <img border="0" alt="[santa]" title="" src="graemlins/santa.gif" />