City of Forks files steelhead petition
Posted on Tuesday 13 April @ 10:58:18

Late Friday, the City of Forks’ petition, requesting that WAC 232-12-619 be amended to allow for the retention of wild steelhead, was filed with the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and also the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The petition was filed by the City of Forks, Mayor Nedra Reed and Dan Leinan as petitioners and had the support of the Forks Chamber of Commerce, the King County Sports Council and the Cowlitz Plan for Restoration-Fish. Other individuals who supported the petition include John Kelly, Bob Reid, Prof. Steve Mathews (Ret.) and Ruby Swagerty.


The petition was filed under the Washington Administrative Procedures Act. It requests the department and the commission to consider amending the sports fishing rules for 2004-05, as well as any rule associated with the 2005-06 rule period, to reverse the recently adopted moratorium on the retention of wild steelhead. The moratorium was adopted on 6 Feb 2004 as part of the Wildlife Commission’s revision to the state’s sport fishing rules. Those rules were published in the state register on 7 April 2004 and will take effect on 1 May 2004. The winter wild steelhead season ends in late April for the rivers in and about Forks.
We informed the commission and the department that if the moratorium was not rescinded that we would utilize the means available to us to have it rescinded, noted Mayor Reed. We met with members of the department and the commission in early March, and while the start date of the moratorium was modified, the moratorium itself was not repealed. As a result, we have filed a petition asking that the harvest rules for wild steelhead be amended to read as they did in 2003-2004. We have six months before the start of the next winter wild steelhead season – so now is the time to truly assess the issue of wild steelhead management on the Olympic Peninsula.
Our petition addresses the issue of whether or not it can be demonstrated that the adopted rule was substantially different from that which was proposed in the written notice, continued Reed. I believe that we clearly demonstrated that difference in the petition we submitted on Friday.
Under the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, the commission has sixty days to respond to the city’s petition. As to next steps, we must wait for a determination of the department and/or the commission as to whether or not the proposal we put forward will be subject to rule making, Reed said. If our petition is denied, we may end up in the court room. My hope, however, is that the commission and the department will decide to open the issue of wild steelhead retention to a thorough public rule making process. We now just have to wait and see.

http://www.forksforum.com/article.php?si...cd0524278955c88

Todd, you've been saying all along now to put up or shut up. Looks like some people were listening.

"Can you hear me now?"


Hey CFM, are you smiling, just a little perhaps?

Get your buses warmed up. When this comes to a public hearing you will need them. Remember the proponents of WSR already have buses loaded with smelly, unwashed hordes of fly fishermen ready to go.

For what its worth..

Please keep in mind this is for WHAT IS BEST FOR THE FISH...not fishermen.

It is not "Us vs. Them". (Baitfishers vs. flyfishers etc.)

There has been so many opinions (both educated and uneducated) floating about these boards on this topic it is really tough for the non-biologist to make any determination on how they would vote.

If a choice will improve the resouce and still allow fishing then I am for it...but, even if we lost the right to fish for steelhead, I would vote for closures if that would help bring back the needed stocks.


Mike

It may not be an us vs. them affair in your mind but it sure the hell is in mine.

Yea Mike, its too bad so many people see it that way, but as you can see from Kerry's post it is a reality. I love fly fishing, bait fishing, gear fishing, jig fishing, bobber fishing you know I just like fishing.

Bruce,

My first post was another demonstration of my sick sense of humor. My second post was not. But before you go deciding that I think it is a matter of fly verses gear, let me say that is not what I meant. It is a matter of those that are against the recent moratorium on the harvest of wild steelhead and those that are for it. I am for it and I will assume by your posts you are against it. We stand on opposite sides of the line. Simple.

So Sad, My $.02, This whole issue isn't about triviality of who wins. It's a question of whether your an advocate for the future of the fish or for letting the fish continue slipping by the way side on your watch. Is the OP streams the "Manifest Destiny" of other Pacific NW streams? I guess some truely cannot see the forest for the trees, even when there are hatchery fish available for harvest.

WHY?

Why must this be an issue of ego's and conflict rather than considering the resource FIRST and what we want/don't want second?

Kerry: Passion is a great thing, but in this case it needs to be passion to save the resource, not get a "victory" over any group of people.

My personal opinion is that none of these efforts (Cnr/WSR etc.) will mean beans unless we get the Commercial and Tribal NETS out of the waters these fish inhabit, and the legal teeth to keep them out.

The legal wrangling and money spent over CNR/WSR could be money far better spent to get the Boldt Decision overturned/modified.

This will take a NATIONAL campaign and a lot of "awareness raising" amongst the non-fishing public before it can happen, but I firmly believe if we, as a ENTIRE GROUP place our efforts and resources towards this task it can happen.

I hate politics, and even more I hate wasted engergy on senseless debate.

Mike B

Double Haul,

You are right it is about being an advocate for the fish. I have no doubt that the majority of those that are against this moratorium consider themselves advocates for the fish and I won’t argue that. Again I say on this issue we are distinctly divided and in my mind it about those that are for this and those that are against it.

I am glad that there has been a request to review this. I hope it stands up to scrutiny. If it does, great. If it does not. I guess we try again.

I get tired of hearing the BS line that if you oppose the moratorium you are against the fish.

The fish never asked for a moratorium... The fools who think it will help the fish and the greedy people who want them for their selves did.

The science says you are wrong. C&R or WSR has never helped a steelhead population avoid the swings encountered by non-C&R regulated populations.

The whole thing is a crock... And worse the moratorium was illegally imposed.

If the WSC is for the fish and for the fishermen they will welcome the chance to address the issue in a public and open manner.

And for those who have been gloating over their illegal victory and challenging the masses who asked for justice with "bring it on" and crowing that "you're all talk and you ain't going to fight"... Here is a good recipe:

Sour Crow Casserole

Ingredients:
12 pieces of boneless crow breast halves
1 jar sauerkraut
6 slices of bacon
1/3 cup of chopped onions

Preparation:
Brown the crow breasts in a skillet with butter or oil. When browned, place them in a casserole dish on a thin layer of sauerkraut. Lay a 1/2 strip of bacon on each piece of crow and sprinkle with onion. Next, add another layer of sauerkraut and some of the juice. Bake at 350°F for 1 hour, lower the heat to 225°F and bake 1-1½ hours longer.

For Crock-of-Crow layer as above in a crock pot and cook 6-8 hours.

I would also like to thank the City of Forks, Mayor Nedra Reed, Dan Leinan, Rod Fleck, the Forks Chamber of Commerce, the King County Sports Council, the Cowlitz Plan for Restoration-Fish, John Kelly, Bob Reid (Cowlitzfisherman), Prof. Steve Mathews (Ret.), Ruby Swagerty and all the others who helped to address this breach of public trust.

We all appreciate your stepping up to the plate.

Ok.

So the law gets overturned because it was illegally made. You "win".

The wild steelhead decline continues in those river systems that are not doing well, including some rivers on the OP.

What do we do then. Close them entirely?

No matter what we as a State do...the Commercial and Tribal nets will still be in the waters.

Mike

The POINT is, now we can do something that unites fisherman and conservationists, and work to help the fish. I dont agree WSR was in the long term best interest of the fish. IMO, it only took away from addressing the real problems. It is(was) a bandaid at best, and I would even argue that point.

At least whatever happens from this point on will have to go through the propper public process. It will be qualified with science, not influence.

Best news I have heard all day, and if that is the result of all this hoopla then I would toss my hat in the ring as well for the review.

MB

Plunker,

Thank you. I always wondered what I was. Now, becuase of you I know. I guess name calling befits your obviously superior intelligence. I should have known better then to take up sides against the likes of you.

Us against them. Simple.

Kerry - Nothing has devided anglers like this C&R moratorium.

This issue needs to be publicly addressed with imput from all fishermen and other concerned parties. Not just fly fishermen!

No one knows which way the debate will go or what decision will be made after all the voices are heard but it WILL serve to bridge the division of the concerned parties.

If you have a problem with that then keep slinging tomatoes.

Kerry hit is right on the head. It is those that think the current system is working and those that don't. Those that want to preserve some angling opportunity for years to come and those that want to use as much of the resource right now and screw the future.

THIS ISN'T A MAGIC BULLET NO ONE EVER SAID IT WAS So get off that arguement. It is still allowing angling oppertunity while minimizing impact on the fish. Get more fish on the spawning beds ain't going to hurt right now.

The AG's office ruled this was done legally so get over the arguement that it was illegal. It wasn't. The WDFW reufuses to listen to the public and put it on as an issue so many people made their voices heard on it. All this was done open and in the public. I got my packet that showed how many people requested it how about you? Everyone was welcome to schedule meetings with the commissioners. Did you? No one ever kept this a secret.

Funny how the Department is getting 75% favorable to the moratorium responses. Wonder what the general public is wanting.

I know change is hard and for a lot of you there is no place for fishing if you can't put some fish on the bank and then put them on the BBQ. I enjoy the sport of it. I don't have to bring fish home to enjoy my day. Do I have an impact. Yes, Do I have less then a person that brings their 5 fish a year home, you bet I do as I don't get 100 steelhead a year. I am a fisherman and want to balance both angling opportunity with reducing impact. Status quo has gotten pretty darn old with the crashes in runs don't you think it is time to try something new.

I doubt there is hope for our fish right now as a lot of people can't see the forest for the trees.

Go ahead and hate me I don't care. Love me I don't care but the fish are hurting right now and I at least want to try to limit the impact while still allowing people to enjoy the experience. I know if you can't drag a fish home then what is the point.

Let's just open all waters up to wild harvest and screw the fish. Kill the river and keep pumping hatchery fish in so then everyone can just whack fish when they want.

off my soap box.

JJ

Plunker,

You were the one that started the name calling.

At what point did I make this a matter of fly vs. anybody? That seems to be something you want to promote. If you bring up my previous posts; make sure you read all of them thoroughly.

us vs. them. Simple.

I think the review is great. If the moritorium stands will those that are against it now(for procedure) support it.

So the Mayor of Forks or something sends a letter and you think you won something... or something ??? A guy sends a letter and you think thats what it will take to get WSR changed.. A letter from some guy ???

Why eat crow, whats changed as a result of this "letter" a few of you are so proud of... I imagine a similar "letter" was sent to somebody when logging was restricted also

FYI, Plunk......fish don't talk.

Oh, and calling WSR supporters "fools" really doesn't add anything to your point.

Gee, Forks sent a letter asking WDFW to repeal statewide WSR. Yeah, well, BFD. Ya think if they write a letter to the IRS and ask them to repeal the Federal Income Tax that they'll have any luck? Let them write their stupid letter, and I'll write MY stupid letter........but Forks doesn't set fishing regs.

i do, the commision has to follow the law. i would realy like to see the laws that said what the commision did was legal, i cant find it, i did look thru the rcw`s that the commision must follow and found the one below

RCW 34.05.335
Withdrawal of proposal -- Time and manner of adoption.
(1) A proposed rule may be withdrawn by the proposing agency at any time before adoption. A withdrawn rule may not be adopted unless it is again proposed in accordance with RCW 34.05.320.

(2) Before adopting a rule, an agency shall consider the written and oral submissions, or any memorandum summarizing oral submissions.

(3) Rules not adopted and filed with the code reviser within one hundred eighty days after publication of the text as last proposed in the register shall be regarded as withdrawn. An agency may not thereafter adopt the proposed rule without refiling it in accordance with RCW 34.05.320. The code reviser shall give notice of the withdrawal in the register.

(4) An agency may not adopt a rule before the time established in the published notice, or such later time established on the record or by publication in the state register

RCW 77.04.090
Rule-making authority -- Certified copy as evidence.
The commission shall adopt permanent rules and amendments to or repeals of existing rules by approval of a majority of the members by resolution, entered and recorded in the minutes of the commission: PROVIDED, That the commission may not adopt rules after July 23, 1995, that are based solely on a section of law stating a statute's intent or purpose, on the enabling provisions of the statute establishing the agency, or on any combination of such provisions, for statutory authority to adopt any rule. The commission shall adopt emergency rules by approval of a majority of the members. The commission, when adopting emergency rules under RCW 77.12.150, shall adopt rules in conformance with chapter 34.05 RCW. Judicial notice shall be taken of the rules filed and published as provided in RCW 34.05.380 and 34.05.210.

A copy of an emergency rule, certified as a true copy by a member of the commission, the director, or by a person authorized in writing by the director to make the certification, is admissible in court as prima facie evidence of the adoption and validity of the rule.


[1996 c 267 § 35; 1995 c 403 § 111; 1984 c 240 § 1; 1980 c 78 § 16; 1955 c 36 § 77.12.050. Prior: 1947 c 275 § 15; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 5992-25. Formerly RCW 77.12.050.]

link to 34.05 rcw

B run,

The petition is not "just" a letter. It is the administrative process to remove the moritorium. It is not a love-letter. The lawsuit is next, if this doesnt work. Wait to judge the petition. At least untill the PDF comes out. It's a great read......

By boater1
"RCW 34.05.335
Withdrawal of proposal -- Time and manner of adoption.
(1) A proposed rule may be withdrawn by the proposing agency at any time before adoption. A withdrawn rule may not be adopted unless it is again proposed in accordance with RCW 34.05.320.

(2) Before adopting a rule, an agency shall consider the written and oral submissions, or any memorandum summarizing oral submissions.
#1 is meaningless because the rule WAS adopted.
#2 The commission did consider written and oral submissions.

jerry, read this, it says the rule was rejected.

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091

February 11, 2002
Contact: Doug Williams, (360) 902-2256


Fish and Wildlife Commission adopts
2002-03 sport fishing rules, steelhead restrictions

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted an overall sport fishing rules package for 2002-03, including a rule that allows for continued retention of wild steelhead, but with reduced daily and annual bag limits.

The nine-member commission, which establishes policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), met Feb. 8-9 in Olympia. On a five to four vote, commissioners rejected a proposal to ban wild steelhead retention throughout Washington state, opting instead to reduce the wild steelhead bag limit from two fish per day and 30 fish per year, to one fish per day and five fish annually. Wild steelhead retention is currently allowed only on rivers with healthy populations.

The sport fishing rules package, including wild steelhead retention rules, takes effect May 1, and was developed over the past year with considerable public input. Commissioners received hundreds of letters and e-mails, and heard direct testimony from dozens of citizens on a variety of proposed sport fishing rules at its December meeting in Vancouver.

In other action, commissioners rejected a proposal that would have allowed anglers to purchase a second freshwater fishing license and use a second fishing pole. The commission approved an updated policy outlining the acceptable use of rotenone to rehabilitate lakes and streams. Review of the department's policy was done to ensure the state's lake rehabilitation program is current with federal regulations regarding environmental health and safety issues. Rotenone, a natural substance, has been used by biologists for a number of years to rid lakes of undesirable fish species. Waters treated with rotenone are typically planted with rainbow trout or other desirable fish species to provide recreational fishing opportunity.

Commissioners also adopted a 2002 North of Falcon policy to help the department with its salmon season-setting process, plus amendments to shellfish disease control rules.

Amendments to Puget Sound commercial marine fish rules were postponed until the commission's March meeting to allow for more input by Fish and Wildlife Advisory Groups and commercial fishing interests. Also postponed, at the request of Grays Harbor County officials, was any action on a proposal to ban jet boats for fishing on the Wynoochee and Satsop rivers. County officials are planning to study the issue of jet boats and other motorized water craft on rivers within Grays Harbor County.

Check that date on the release.

Plunk...Don't know about natural swings , but do know that on Vancouver Island, where C&R has been in effect on wild fish for some time...they actually have lots of wild summer fish left. Sure does not seem to be hurting it there.

Chip ,do they have indians with nets?

Not sure YBNORMAL, but the Skeena watershed does ...

Just an FYI since this seems to be coming to a head: $$$ talks in this town and Ruby Swagerty owns Three Rivers Resort with her husband Scott, so if you don't agree with their stance, you might consider where you spend your $$$ in this town. Another one, the owner of the Texaco / Subway is strongly against any C&R and has begun eating breakfast elsewhere because of myself and the "people" I bring into the Forks Coffee Shop on a daily basis ... so another business you can place your vote with

boater,

The 2 year moratorium has been adopted...that's what happened at the Rules Adoption Meeting back in February. Those RCW's do not apply.

However, within 60 days of adoption of a rule, anyone can petition the Commission to rescind the adoption, essentially to "take it back".

That's what's happening now with Forks' letter to the WDFW/Commission.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks for the info Bob. It works both ways so I'll be sure to drop some $$$ at both of those establishments when I visit and any other establishment that stands up and speaks out about what I feel is right. They are taking a stand and I respect that. We were blind sided by the commission. The petition that was filed on Friday with the support of many is the first legal step required in order to fix the commissions wrong doing.

why didnt they have to go thru the same procedure with this rule as they did the last time, they proposed it and it was rejected, how can they legaly un-reject a rule ?

at the springer allowcation meeting there were 3 proposals and the commision rejected 2 and adopted one of them, are you saying that anytime they want they can un-reject the ones they rejected and adopt any one they want ?

boater,

What they can do essentially is rescind the rule, and then put it through the rules adoption process again...then we'll see how it shakes out after that, if they choose to do that.

If they don't choose to do that, then the door is open for further challenges from the petitioners.

Fish on...

Todd

Does everyone remember that Dave Jackson dude that used to post on this board and others??...and he would routinely post that picture of that dead horse?

Hmmmmm...where is Dave Jackson and more importantly, where is that dead horse picture???

Hey......buzz off........I got a couple more solid shots to take at that horse. I think it just twitched.

todd, the last time it was put thru the prosses it was rejected in 2002, if you look at THIS link under the final rule proposals its not included

maybe i should try a difrent question ?

how can the commision adopt a proposed rule for 2004-2005 if it isnt on the list of rules that are being proposed ?

YO PLUNK !!!!
How stupid are you and the rest of those bonking fools out there, don't you guys get it ?
That when you are killing the wild fish you are just destroying the future of the river, man you guys are so ****ed !!!!!
At least though you admit to killing nates, I ran into a couple of guides on the Clearwater that preach C & R But when I went over to say hi they had dead Nates in there box, just made me sick !!!!
And guess what, these prior meetings were open to the public, DUH !!!!
I was there and it was definateley in the opinion that This was the best thing for the fish, Not the fisherman. Now learn how to fish and kill hatchery fish !!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
Superfly

Considering the ramifications of the Commissions decision I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if the moratorium were rescinded and reconsidered through a public and legal process.

I hope that the WSC, FFF and Trout Unlimited will encourage the Commission to do just that. After all it is also in their best interest to see that any moratorium that is imposed is in accordance with the will of people it affects.

I personally believe that a blanket moratorium is not a good management practice. It sets a dangerous precedent for a continuing trend of lost fishing opportunity in areas where closures are not consistent with good management policy in the name of protecting another area where closures might be a good idea.

I also want to harvest wild steelhead from stocks strong enough to withstand harvest. I like eating steelhead and most of those I have eaten in the past have been of wild origin because the bulk of the fish in the Skagit where I fish are wild.

In times of low production like what we have been seeing in Puget Sound rivers, fishing closures specific to those areas makes better sense to me. By selectively managing each river system more specific management goals can be applied.

But whatever I believe is the right approach to blanket policies or whatever someone else believes, a rule that is formulated in accordance with legal procedures and with the input of all interested parties is a rule likely to be embraced by everyone.

The C&R zealots have been dividing the community for far too long and now is their chance to help reunite that community and, if they are right about the need for a C&R policy statewide, to get that policy mandated through an open, legal and public process.

For these reasons I ask everyone to support the petition. This is our chance to do what is right for the fishermen and what is right for the fish.

Here's a letter that was sent to the commission yesterday. Wow it looks like the Reps and Senators that signed this letter must be a bunch of Fish killing, Fish Bonking, Stupid Redneck Neanderthals just like the rest of us that some of you guys would like to make us out to be.

It's not looking good for all you Neanderthal hating folks out there!

-----------------
April 13, 2004

Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission

ATTN: Commission Members

600 Capital Way North

Olympia, WA 98501

Dear Members of the Commission:

We are writing to express our disapproval of the commission's action to institute a two year ban on the retention of wild steelhead on western Olympic Peninsula rivers. We believe the commission's action violated the Administrative Procedures Act, is unsupported by fish management science and is contrary to state law expressed in RCW 77.

This letter will clarify the relationship between the legislature and the commission and then explain the reasons for the opposition to the ban on wild steelhead retention.

RCW 77.04.012 defines the mandate of the department and commission when it states:

"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 resource."

"The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens...."

RCW 77.04.013 further clarifies the legislature's intent saying:

"The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996, the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department."

"The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

RCW 77.04.055 sets out the duties of the commission:

"Commission - Duties, (1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:

(a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to those policies; and

(b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies.

The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations.

(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.

(3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.

(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.

(5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.

(6) The commission shall have the final approval authority for the department's budget proposals.

7) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission."

Conversations with commissioners reveal the commission believes it is a policy making body. This is not the case. The state constitution clearly gives the legislature the job of creating public policy. The commission has the job "In establishing policy to preserve, protect and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat" of meeting with the governor annually to review and provide basic goals and objectives; and to review the performance of the department in implementing those policies. Changes in policy direction are to be presented to the governor and the legislature for enactment into law. The commission has no ability to create its own policy and is limited to the role of a consultant in presenting new directions it feels the state should follow. Changes from existing legislative direction to those new directions are not to be pursued unless legislation is enacted giving the commission authority to implement the change.

With this in mind, the commission's decision to ban retention of wild steelhead for two years is a policy change made without legislative approval. In fact, legislators have consistently told the commission over a two year period that a rule of this type would be considered a policy change and further indicated that legislative approval would not be forthcoming unless WDFW fish management showed the runs were in trouble. Wild steelhead runs on the western Olympic Peninsula rivers are not endangered. According to WDFW and tribal biologists they are not impaired and are capable of supporting the limited retention called for in 2003-2004 fishing regulations. Therefore, the decision violates the legislative directive that the commission "SHALL" attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens..."

AND the commissions duty that it "shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations."

The commission's failure to consult coastal Indian tribal co-managers when considering the ban violates federal court requirements for co-management of the runs under US v Washington.

The commission's failure to provide adequate public notice that the rule would be considered is at least a violation of the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act if not an outright violation of RCW 77.04.130. It is also a violation of the public's intent for an open commission process as expressed in R-45 (RCW 77.04.013) that specifies "The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

The legislature spends a good deal of taxpayer money to employ wildlife managers at WDFW. The ban ignores the science presented by these managers and in doing so brings into question the commission's commitment to sound wildlife management. The legislature has also spent a great deal of money on salmon recovery. One must question why, if the commission is going to prevent fishers from retaining fish from healthy runs.

In conclusion, we feel the commission short circuited the legislative process when it adopted the rule. The rule should be rescinded and if the commission still believes it is necessary should be submitted to the legislature as request legislation in time for the 2005 Legislative session.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Reps who have signed: Buck, Sump, Blake, Schoesler, Pearson, Kessler, Orcutt, Armstrong, Hatfield, Hinkle

Senators who have signed: Sheldon, Morton, Hewitt, Hargrove, Doumit, Honeyford, McCaslin

No, their just vote whores.... To bad they want to please such a small amount of people. When it gets to a actual vote, they will go with the majority... and fish bonkers will lose... again

Please a small amount of people??? You need a dose of reality. There is far more than a SMALL amount of people upset about this and if it is not clear to you by now that what the commission did was wrong then I think you have tunnel vision. Its clear that some of you only want to see it your way and make cheap shots at anyone that does not agree with you.

The worm has turn...

Explain to me how removing the exceptions to a rule is making new policy. WSR has been the policy for awhile now they just removed the exceptions so that isn't making a new policy.

Second explain how this limits recreational fishing opportunity? It doesn't you can still fish.

There two main points are totally false.

JJ

This is exactly what I expected from Buck. 2 years ago when the commission almost instituted WSR, Buck floated a law to take all the rule changes away from the commission and give it to a legislative committee. This basically was a threat by Buck. I believe before Buck floated the threat the votes were there in the commission to have instituted WSR 2 years ago. So there is your backdoor manuvering.

Is the process still working Jerry/JJ?

You mentioned Buck, what about all the other Reps and SENTATORS that signed it? Can so many people really be that wrong? Are all the WA State Anglers, Reps, legislators, City Mayors, Attorneys, business etc etc etc really be so blind and dumb? Just maybe, now I know its a grasping at straws, but could it be possible that some of these people really are right? I mean holy cow! We now have a letter signed by lots of Senators and Reps that points out exactly what RCW's were violated.

Where's Todd?

Actually, Bruce, what we have is a list of RCW's, and legislators saying they were violated, a lot like CFM's earlier posts where he cut and pasted pages of RCW's and said "See! I told you it was illegal!", without any analysis of how it was illegal.

If I have time in a little while I'll go through the letter and give it its due...though, frankly, in the initial 1000 post thread, every one of those RCW's was alleged as being broken, and no one could actually show how. Now I know that the legislators are probably better at that kind of stuff, since they work on laws every day, but they didn't do anything in that letter beyond alleging that RCW's were broken, which doesn't cut it.

More on the letter later, time permitting...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I just finished a long post on the "Dams, Salmon, and We, the People" thread...I think my subject matter would apply here just as well as it did there...

"Actually, Bruce, what we have is a list of RCW's, and legislators saying they were violated."

Ok Todd. I agree. Thats what their saying.

Now I suppose the Reps and Senators are wrong also....? Don't they make the laws or something like that?

For weeks now you have been very very quick to jump on the "put up or shut" bandwagon. You've been very quick to respond/reply to any opposition to WSC, the process and this ruling. I look forward to reading your response regarding the above letter also.

Process definately still working. Back room lobbying going right now for sure. Are you against that too?

Still waiting to know how this limits fishing opportunity? THey aren't saying you can't fish.

JJ

"AllStar Rods Prostaff
Vision Hooks and Tackle Prostaff
Thor-Built Boats Prostaff"

I need to make a note of that. Never support, promote or buy those products.

Well, I wouldn't call them experts, either. How many laws get passed every session before being struck down in the courts for one reason or another?

If the proper procedures weren't used in order to put the rule in effect......then they should have been. If the RCW's were danced around, then it hurts us all.......maybe not this time, but eventually.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what shakes out.

I'll say this again Bruce. I hope to hell I'm wrong that steelhead are in danger. Nothing would please me more than to be able to have people harvest the hell out of the wild steelhead and still have the fish populations increase. What is your fallback position Buce if you are wrong?

Jerry when I feel that over harvest by sport fisherman becomes a problem, then I may choose to aggressivly address that issue at that time.

"Quote from Smalma:"

WSR regulations only aid in the rebuilding of stocks when over fishing is the major cause of the population decline.

Problem is Bruce when you notice the decline it's to late. Reference the Sky, Stilly ETC.

Ooooh, they're Senators and Reps .. that means they know a lot about these fisheries :rolleyes:

Hell, the city attorney here in Forks during our long discussion regarding this matter couldn't even answer the basic question asked of him regarding major life cycle differences between salmon and steelhead. His answer was along the lines of: they come back every four years don't they?

There's a reason that there's a Commission and fish / game laws are not made by legislators.

Will said Bob

The only BIG loser in this is the WILD STEELHEAD!

Has been and always will be!

Plunker-

Since you live on a river that is basically on it's knees, and one that you can't legally harvest wild steelhead anymore, do you know why the run declined to this point? And can you scientifically prove it? (I don't want WDFW answers here as they are only around for one reason- To manage harvest allotment and nothing else.) Bruce???

To the vocal minority of Pro-kill that is constantly defending their position on this board-

The fish runs on the OP are in decline. Can you show that the #'s of wild steelhead in '04 are anything comparable to 100 years ago? Look at the two most common reasons given, from your own arguments, for the decline: Harvest and Habitat.

Native American harvest, and the Bolt decision, is the biggest complaint usually voiced here. Is this the true cause of the declining fish #'s over the past century? Or is it part of the problem? Where does sport harvest play into this equation, set at 50% of the harvestable "surplus"? What about the hatchery fish and their genetic pollution of the wild stocks? Any ideas on how much this might be contributing to the collapse of the early returning component? What is the quickest fix WE can apply to the resource to help slow, stop, or reverse the decline? WSR

Habitat. Damaged habitat. Is this the true cause of the decline? And if it is the largest contributor to the problem, why are you not spending all of your time, $$$, and energy (the energy and time spent arguing on a BB that could be applied towards the REAL, according to your own arguments, problem? If the habitat issues were FIXED would the issue of WSR be the hourly theme on this BB?

And to those that feel we should just close the rivers cause if they ain't healthy enough to killem then they ain't healthy enough to be harrassed.

I voluntarily choose to limit my effectiveness and I voluntarily choose to release wild salmonids. The methods I practice have been scientifically shown to result in 2% mortality on angled steelhead. That means if I were to fish 100 days over the winter/spring season and be blessed enough to positively identify 30 HOOKED steelhead my KILL rate is going to be .6 fish. And if I use barbless short shank #4 hooks I can pretty much guarantee that the kill rate is going to be even less. A competent baitfisherman can hook that many fish on a couple of good weekends with a much, much, much higher mortality rate (approaching 10%). You do the math on who is going to impact the population more.

I am not arguing that fishing is not a blood sport because it is. I also find no remorse in 'torturing' a wild creature only to let it go where it is going to survive 98% of the time to finish its job. I can live with those odds. I choose to CONSERVE my harvest allotment for the least amount of impact to the resource.

But I do grow tired of the 'red herring' argument tactics. The truth is that if sport harvest is reduced to the LOWEST possible # there will be more fish making it to the redds. How can that be wrong? This whole pro kill argument being vehemently defended here just comes across as "You are not going to tell me what to do" rather than look to the future and what COULD be.

And for those, even the biologists that participate, here is quote that pretty much sums up my feeling towards conservation FIRST:

"Not only are ecosystems more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think".

William

Couldn't have put it better myself Joe!

And CFM got the boot????

He wasn't near this bad.

Inland great post

Thank You, William!

So you think the commissioners are fisheries experts? Some of the people that you mentioned may not be experts in the fisheries department but they should know plenty about the law and the process which is what is in question here.

Ok...I'll take a look at the letter from the legislators now...

******************
April 13, 2004
Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
ATTN: Commission Members
600 Capital Way North
Olympia, WA 98501
Dear Members of the Commission:
We are writing to express our disapproval of the commission's action to institute a two year ban on the retention of wild steelhead on western Olympic Peninsula rivers. We believe the commission's action violated the Administrative Procedures Act, is unsupported by fish management science and is contrary to state law expressed in RCW 77.

***Cool...now tell me 1. how the Commission violated the APA, how their decision is unsupported by fish management science, and how it violates RCW 77.***

This letter will clarify the relationship between the legislature and the commission and then explain the reasons for the opposition to the ban on wild steelhead retention.

***Cool again. Let's hear it.***

RCW 77.04.012 defines the mandate of the department and commission when it states:
"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 resource."
"The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens...."

**OK...the Commission may use its judgment to set the time, place, and manner of fishing. Right...whether you agree with what they did or not, they definitely did this. "Maximize opportunity"...OK...there are many ways to do this...ranging from harvest the max now for greatest present harvest opportunity, to close it for future opportunity, to everything in between. "Maximizing" opportunity is a judgment call as to what that means and how to do it. Again, whether you agree with what the Commission did or not, they made a judgment call as to how to maximize opportunity, as they are mandated to do.**


RCW 77.04.013 further clarifies the legislature's intent saying:
"The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996, the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife.

**OK...Commission, we the Legislature give you regulatory authority...**

It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department."

***OK, doesn't really apply, except for maybe the "adopt rules" part, which if it does apply, they definitely did here.**


"The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission.

**OK, this first refers to the legislative mandate to combine the Deptarments of Fisheries and Game from a few years back, and to put the Commission in charge of the newly formed WDFW, and that the Commission has decision-making authority. No problem here.**

The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

**OK, first point that has some teeth...we all want to have confidence in our WDFW, and the more public involvement, the better. This is a very good piece of advice, and is controlled by the rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act, which I'm sure we'll get to later.**


RCW 77.04.055 sets out the duties of the commission:
"Commission - Duties, (1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:
(a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to those policies; and
(b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies.
The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations.

**The Commission must meet with the Governor once a year...doesn't apply to this issue.**

(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.

**As above, this is exactly what they did, whether you agree with what they did or not, they did establish a manner to harvest or enjoy wild steelhead**

(3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.

**Doesn't apply here**

(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.

**Doesn't apply here**

(5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.

**OK, again, whether you agree with WSR or not, they definitely adopted a rule**

(6) The commission shall have the final approval authority for the department's budget proposals.

**Doesn't apply here**

7) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission."

**Doesn't apply here**

Conversations with commissioners reveal the commission believes it is a policy making body.

**It's not really a policy making body in and of itself, but the legislature delegated authority to the Commission to effectuate policy regarding setting the time, place, and manner of taking and enjoying fish and wildlife**

This is not the case. The state constitution clearly gives the legislature the job of creating public policy. The commission has the job "In establishing policy to preserve, protect and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat" of meeting with the governor annually to review and provide basic goals and objectives; and to review the performance of the department in implementing those policies.

**OK, the Commission is not a policy making body, and then they quote the state law where they delegated policy making authority to the Commission, and to meet with the Governor once a year to review goals and objectives, and to review performance of them**

Changes in policy direction are to be presented to the governor and the legislature for enactment into law. The commission has no ability to create its own policy and is limited to the role of a consultant in presenting new directions it feels the state should follow. Changes from existing legislative direction to those new directions are not to be pursued unless legislation is enacted giving the commission authority to implement the change.


**This may or may not be true, but the fact is the people of the state, through the legislature, have enacted RCW 77.04, et seq., expressly delegating authority to the Commission to take the legislature and politics out of fisheries management. The Commission does not need the Legislature's permission...the people, through this RCW, have expressly given it to the Commission. This is the reason why the people of the State of Washington passed laws creating the DFW Commission, to take politicians OUT of fisheries managment. If they had to run to the legislature and ask them to pass a law every time they wanted to do anything, they would have no authority. We, the people of this state, expressly said, in the very RCW that the letter cites, that we do not want it to be that way.**

With this in mind,...

**They've already missed the boat, what they "have in mind" is directly opposed to what we, the people, have said it will be through RCW 77.04, et seq.**

...the commission's decision to ban retention of wild steelhead for two years is a policy change made without legislative approval.

**First, it's not a change in policy, on many levels. The law has given the Commission the power to make this decision. The previous regulation was already WSR, it just allowed for exceptions...the new regulation removed the exception. Lastly, it does not need legislative approval...the law specifically takes this decision away from the legislature and gives it to the Commission to keep the legislature out of fisheries management.**

In fact, legislators have consistently told the commission over a two year period that a rule of this type would be considered a policy change and further indicated that legislative approval would not be forthcoming unless WDFW fish management showed the runs were in trouble.

**Tell them all they want, the people have spoken through forming the Commission under RCW 77.04, et seq., and what they've said is "Politicians will not be making fisheries decisions in this state anymore." Again, that was the entire point of passing RCW 77.04, et seq., and forming the Commission.**


Wild steelhead runs on the western Olympic Peninsula rivers are not endangered. According to WDFW and tribal biologists they are not impaired and are capable of supporting the limited retention called for in 2003-2004 fishing regulations.

**Endangered or no, they make seasons regulating the time, place, and manner of ALL wildlife in Washington...the Feds are pretty much in charge, at least with total veto power, over endangered animals.**


Therefore, the decision violates the legislative directive that the commission "SHALL" attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens..."

**That's only if you believe that "attempting to maximize...opportunities" means harvest whenever possible, which is a policy decision, which we have given the authority to make such decisions to the Commission, again, through RCW 77.04. If you think that "attempt to maximize...opportunities" means harvest whenever possible, fine...but it doesn't have to mean that, and the Commission has decided that maximizing opportunities may mean many things, depending on the situtation. Other state laws require that alternate forms of wildlife utilization be proactively put into fisheries and wildlife policy, such as CnR fisheries, flyfishing only, juvenile only, etc., etc....this is clearly within the mandate that we the people gave them in RCW 77.04.***


AND the commissions duty that it "shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations."

**Same as the last comment...and "compatible with healthy fish" does not mean "must harvest everything until they are endangered"***

The commission's failure to consult coastal Indian tribal co-managers when considering the ban violates federal court requirements for co-management of the runs under US v Washington.

***No it doesn't. The Boldt decision requires that the co-managers set escapement levels, determine the amount of fish available over escapement, and set seasons to make sure that no party catches the other party's fish. We DO NOT have to ask permission on how to treat our half, just like they don't have to ask us permission on how to treat our half. It's none of their business. Read my thread on "Foregone Opportunity" to see all the federal court decisions that control this issue.**

The commission's failure to provide adequate public notice that the rule would be considered is at least a violation of the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act if not an outright violation of RCW 77.04.130.

**The easy one first...the "open" language in 77.04.130 requires compliance with the APA, so that's the only issue here. Let's hear how the Commission broke the law...**

**Oh...I guess we're not going to say how the APA was violated...we're just going to say that it must have beeen, "at least in spirit". Fine sentiment...won't get you very far in court.**

It is also a violation of the public's intent for an open commission process as expressed in R-45 (RCW 77.04.013) that specifies "The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

***Third repition of a statement that assures compliance with the APA, with no discussionn of the APA or how it was or was not violated.***

The legislature spends a good deal of taxpayer money to employ wildlife managers at WDFW. The ban ignores the science presented by these managers and in doing so brings into question the commission's commitment to sound wildlife management.

***Yes it does, lots of money. The moratorium does not ignore WDFW managers' science...it accepts all of their data, and doesn't like the way the trends are going, especially based on 40 years of downward trends. Is sound wildlife management blindly following the department's recommendations? If so, then why do they call them recommendations? Why not call them mandates? If they're going to be mandates, why do we need the Commission? If they have to do what Bob Gibbons says for steelhead, then why doesn't he just make the rules? Why do we need public input if they can't even listen to it, whether they want to or not? This whole statement is a horrible *******ization of the Commission's regulatory authority, and the APA's mandate to take and listen to public comment.***


The legislature has also spent a great deal of money on salmon recovery. One must question why, if the commission is going to prevent fishers from retaining fish from healthy runs.

***Is this for real? Since we're spending so much money, even if we are decades away from salmon recovery, if at all, we should harvest as many as we can? Now THAT"S a wast of salmon recovery money!! Even when 97% of the steelhead retained in the state are hatchery fish? This kind of shortsighted statement is WHY we spend so much money on salmon recovery...it's the kind of attitude that lead to salmon needing recovery.***

In conclusion, we feel the commission short circuited the legislative process when it adopted the rule.

**There is no legislative process for fish and wildlife rules...the people have spoken...RCW 77.04 specifically took fisheries management OUT of the legislative process.**

The rule should be rescinded and if the commission still believes it is necessary should be submitted to the legislature as request legislation in time for the 2005 Legislative session.

**Wrong. The legislature flat out DOES NOT tell the Commission how to run fisheries managment. When the people of Washington passed RCW 77.04, they specifically gave that authority to the Commission, in part to specifically take the legislature out of fisheries management. Do they really expect that every time the Commission wants to pass a rule it must ask for the legislature to pass a law? That is patently BS.**

We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Reps who have signed: Buck, Sump, Blake, Schoesler, Pearson, Kessler, Orcutt, Armstrong, Hatfield, Hinkle
Senators who have signed: Sheldon, Morton, Hewitt, Hargrove, Doumit, Honeyford, McCaslin

**I greatly look forward to the advice letter that the AGO will send to the Commission when the Commission sends this letter across the plaza to the Attorney General's Office. I expect that it will be a lot like the stuff I wrote above.**

Remember, this is not about whether or not anyone, including the above signed legislators, agree with the rule. It's about whether or not it was done legally.

The only leg to stand on is a violation of the APA, which was not even touched on in the letter beyond mentioning it. If they feel that there was a violation of the APA, they should have at least pointed to ONE section of it that they thought was violated.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I have to run, so I won't get to edit or preview this post at this time...I'll just post it and make sure it's cool in just a little while, later this evening.

Todd,

Did the WSC ever consider including a ban on harvest that included tribes, commercials, and sportsfishers equally? Why should the sportsfisher shoulder the load of conserving the fish when no one else is asked to? If not, why not? Did you choose your course of action because you felt it was the only way to get something done? Why does the WSC feel it's up to the sportsfishers to ben dover?


And on another note, it sure seems like you were the unknown legal opinion a certian commissioner enlisted the help of. Is that acurate?

Hairlip,

By law there is no non-tribal commercial steelhead fishery...the only ones they catch in nets are in the Columbia River, and they are caught incidentally during legal salmon fisheries, not as targets. The to catch is controlled by the feds through the ESA, as all those fish are listed.

As noted here and elsewhere, the WSC is intimately involved with trying to stop as much of the incidental bycatch of those fish as is possible. The only way to stop it completely would be to pass another B.A.N. Initiative so as to completely outlaw commercial fishing.

While the WSC would probably support such a measure, it's way outside of our charter to take the lead on such a project.

As far as the tribal share goes, as you know, no one but the United States Congress can stop them from catching it with nets. Negotiations can work, though, and part of the push for WSR is to get that rolling. Remember the statement from the Quileutes when WSR passed? They were afraid that the general public would "resent" them for exercising their treaty rights now that WSR had passed.

D@mn right! With WSR they are the ONLY ones directly harvesting wild steelhead...of course it makes them look bad...and it would open the door for negotiations.

On the other question, in no way, shape, or form have I given any advice or consultation to anyone on the Commission about this rule. I've been asked several times about that on this BB and others, and the answer has always been the same..."no". They have their own attorneys...

On a different thread I wrote a very long rant about being tired about being asked questions like that about making the sportsmen "ben dover". Please read it...it talks about all the stuff that I am doing with the WSC right now, and asks for everyone else to step up and either get your own clubs involved, or join one that is involved, or get some work done on your own.

There is A LOT more going on RIGHT NOW than just wsr, this is one of many, many issues that the WSC is dealing with. Check them out on the other thread.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks Todd, honest answers. There is some common ground here. To be honest, it would be a nice change. IMO, if what pans out in this whole WSR deal is that we use science and process as a manual for success, we're all better off. This will empower the facts, and the people who do the work for our fisheries, whom are too often submarined by another agenda. Your diligence has made me pay attention. I'm bettin I'm not the only one.....

Thanks for your reply.

Hairlip.

Some more info
I work with different Tribes on different projects
There after the same thing we are after HEALTH STREAM
Tribes have been and will be GREAT partners on related issues
They take the LEAD in a lot projects (big and small) no one hears about it but Watershed Councils
Go to your local Watershed Meetings and see what is going on!
You might be surprised.

*********************

Peace
Superfly

Let's stick to the topic at hand.

If wild steelhead are in such danger and the state does not want to allow retention of these fish, and you are not allowed to remove them from the water to take a picture then things really must be bad.
IF things are this bad then ALL fishing for WILD steelhead should end for four years, not even catch and release should be allowed. If you are worried that you would not be able to target the hatchery fish because of this, then just shut that down as well. IF the problem is so bad and you all want to do something about it, then leave the poor fish alone. Shut it down and see what happens. Those of you who are so worried about the declining wild fish in this state should agree to this.

Got a good feeling I'm digging my self in a huge hole here since I don't know nearly as much as you guys about this subject. I just don't see why some people are angry, about having to release native steelhead. They are such a special fish and don't deserve to be killed, if you want meat in the freezer have your fill on hatchery boots that is what they are there for. There are many good examples here in the Great Lakes where over harvesting of fish have lead to depleated runs. The Ganaraska is a good example back in the late 80's early 90's that river got on average 15000 wild steelhead now about 4-5 thousand is the average. I would just hate to see the same thing happen out west.