*Formatting may be a bit screwy due to being copied over...sorry if it is!*

Dear Friends of Steelhead where ever you may be:


Many of you are already aware that the States of Washington and Oregon have applied to NOAA Fisheries to increase the allowable impacts on ESA listed steelhead in the Columbia by the commercial fleet. The request is to raise from 2% to 6% the mortality cap on wild winter steelhead to give the commercial fleet the ability to have a higher by-catch of wild steelhead while they are netting Spring Chinook Salmon out of the mainstem.

Members of the sportfishing and conservation community are outraged. After all, there have been decades of conservation efforts and sacrifices made the sportfishing community that is paying off in healthier steelhead stocks. From leading the charge for selective fisheries, changing hatchery practices, habitat and hydro protections, sport fishers have fought for protective measures for wild steelhead. We did not do so to transfer the biological benefits of our efforts over to the commercial fleet to die in tangle nets. It's not fair.

Indeed, many of the stocks are still too fragile to be raising impacts. For example, WDF&W's own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead. Furthermore, ocean conditions right now are extremely beneficial to wild steelhead. This is the time to invest the recent increase of wild ESA steelhead in recovery, not in increased mortalities!

Small communities throughout Washington and Oregon are reaping the benefits of steelhead fisheries that are selectively targeted on hatchery winter steelhead. Literally tens of thousands of angler trips are spent in pursuit of winter steelhead in the lower Columbia. ODF&W has estimated that an angler trip in the lower Columbia is valued at $138.00 per day. Sportfishing for winter steelhead occurs during an important window to help sustain year-round family wage jobs. Looking at the last several years of data, there are almost yearly examples where the commercial fleet over fished their preseason quota. This would shut down sport fisheries in the mainstem and in the tributaries, where smaller businesses depend upon winter steelhead.

You must do three things right now!
1) Write (via fax or mail) the Commission Chairs today!
2) Send the same letter to the Governor's office today
3) Pass this e-mail on to others on your list.
Remember to stay professional and polite, but be clear that this is not acceptable. You are welcome to call any of us with questions, or if you need help. We at NSIA would appreciate a copy of your letter sent to: nsia.aaron@comcast.net

Norm Ritchie, President, Association of Northwest Steelheaders
Todd Ripley, Vice President of Political and Legal Affairs, Wild Steelhead Coalition c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com 425-281-0571
Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
866.315. NSIA


***Action Alert—Protect Wild Winter Steelhead****

To: Washington and Oregon Anglers
From: Norm Ritchie, NW Steelheaders
Todd Ripley, Wild Steelhead Coalition
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Subject: Proposal To Triple Allowable Steelhead Kill In Gill-Net Fishery

First, A quick quiz:

Question: How do fishery managers make Gill-Nets more Effective?

Answer: Lower the standards.

ODFW and WDFW staffers have written a request to NOAA Fisheries asking for an increase in the allowable kill of threatened and endangered wild winter steelhead by the Columbia River Gill-Net fleet. The latest is new request by ODFW and WDFW to triple the allowed steelhead kill from 2% of the run to 6%!

This request was originally made in 2004, but NOAA Fisheries asked for more information and did not act on that original request. Perhaps most incredible is the increased steelhead kill was not allowed or needed in the 2004 gill-net fishery. Yet the fishery managers persist in their efforts to increased steelhead kill in the gill-net fishery.

Please write the Governor’s office and Fish & Wildlife Commissions and express your opposition to increase the kill on wild winter steelhead in the Columbia River.

Write: Governor’s Office

Jim Myron, Natural Resource Policy Advisor Bob Nichols,
Oregon Governor’s Office Washington Governor’s Office
900 Court Street 302 14th Ave. SW
Salem, OR 97301 Olympia, WA 98054
f/ 503-378-3225 f/360 586 8380
jim.myron@state.or.us Bob.Nichols@ofm.wa.gov,

Write the Fish & Wildlife Commissions, ask for copies sent to all commissioners

Marla Rae, Chair Will Roehl, Chair
Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
3406 Cherry Avenue, NE 600 Capitol Blvd.
Salem, OR 97303 Olympia WA 98501-1091
f/503 947 6041 f/c/o Susan Yeager 360 902 2267



“Tell ‘em no more steelhead kill in the Columbia!”

When will the madness stop?

Makes it very hard to trust that WDFW is doing anything about genuine restoration efforts for endangered and threatened salmon/steelhead runs. What exactly do these "stewards" of our fish resources actually get paid to do?

Hey, Moderators...

Any chance of getting a "sticky" attached to this one?

Thanks!

Todd

Here is my letter to them. PLEASE take the time, write & call them

Mr. Nichols & Mr Myron.

My name is John Rogers, I currently live in Washington and grew up on the Oregon coast in Lincoln City. I am a small business owner, avid fisherman, and father of (2) great daughters that cherish our family steelheading trips. In fact for the last several years my most cherished Christmas present has been a family steelheading trip on Christmas eve.

I can not express to you in words how upset and frustrated that our DFW's, both Oregon and Washington, have requested to allow an increase in the steelhead kill from 2% of the run to 6%!. I don’t believe that a commercial fishery is in the best interests of either state based upon the economic impacts of the commercial versus sports fishing and the revenue that is generated from each industry from this fishery, that is matter of my opinion. I can not see what benefit would come from allowing an increase in the mortality rate on a ESA listed fishery.

There are other methods of commercial fishing that would reduce the mortality rate of the steelhead in the commercial industry, yet they are not implemented or even considered, and now they want to increase it. Why are we not working on helping them decrease the % of mortality is beyond me. I understand, not agree, with the states need to BALANCE the fishery between the commercial and sports fishing community. I don’t see how with increase rules and restrictions on the sports fishing industry, most if not all of which I agree with, like barb less hooks, not removing the fish from the water, limited seasons and so on. For the DFW to ask for an INCREASING the commercial mortality % is not working towards a balance, reducing the % is.

Both Oregon and Washington's DWF own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead.

I would like you to consider this in making your decision and so NO to the increase and see if we can help them reduce the percentage of mortality rates with fishing methods that are currently available today.


Sincerely

John Rogers
J.R.

Thanks, John!

This pure crap. Why would they want to increase the kill of wild , endangered fish? Oh yeah, $$$. It's always $$$ in one form or another. We need to speak up now. My letter will go in the mail tonight and I will be reporting on this in my column.

Here is my letter. Come on guys, sing in and let us know you sent your too.


December 16, 2004

Please provide this letter to all commission members

Will Roehl, Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Blvd.
Olympia WA 98501-1091
f/c/o Susan Yeager 360 902 2267

Mr. Roehl:

Both as an outdoor journalist and as a sportsman I am deeply disturbed by the Commissions attempts to triple allowable mortality rates on endangered winter steelhead runs.

I believe your primary concern should be rebuilding wild salmon and steelhead stocks. This proposed action, which will be to the detriment of tens of thousands of current sport fishermen and untold millions of future Washington residents, is apparently being done to benefit the handful of commercial netters who profit at the expense of all other citizens.

I firmly believe the stocks to be impacted are much too fragile withstand such an onslaught. Your own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead. In this time of extraordinarily favorable, ocean conditions we need to be doing all we can to rebuild these runs not to view this short-term phenomena as an opportunity to increased mortalities!

I beg you to listen to the will of the people and to your conscience and do the right thing. Withdraw this ill-conceived plan immediately. Can you sleep at night knowing that you put the final nail in the coffin of even one river’s wild steelhead? There is no cure for extinction!

Please know that I will be reporting on the commission’s actions regarding this mater in several region and national magazines. I am sure you will not mind the publicity if you know you are doing the right thing!


Dave Vedder
NW Regional Editor Salt Water Sportsman magazine

AM: Good point. But I still want to let the comission know this is a damn bad idea!

Remember that this proposal was hatched by the outlaws at Division 5 WDFW who are notorious for ignoring the health or fish runs in the Columbia in favor of maximum yield for their commercial fishing cronies. We saw this proposal many months ago and it stunk then just as it does now.

Maybe the WDFW commission will break their long standing precedent and actually listen to our side.

It is my understanding that WDF&W sent their request to NOAA about a month ago. Therefore, it seems that it is out of the hands of our commission, or the governor, for that matter. NOAA is supposed to provide for public comment prior to rendering a decision, but I cannot find out when they plan to do so.
Given that the net season starts in about 60 days (which is seconds in government- time) the public annuncement has to be published soon. The net fishery in 2002 took 21,000 steelhead at the 2% level, imagine what will happen at 6%.

Even if NOAA should agree to the request and while the time line may be short, the Commission - if they so choose, can always enact emergency closures or change the WAC to restrict harvest methods. In general, the states can be more restrictive than federal rules but not more permissive.

It wouldn't hurt to send a copy of your letter to your local newspaper and the Chamber of Commerces, especially along the River. Might be interesting if some of the alleged
investigative TV folks decide to take a look at the issue, too.

If NOAA-F were to sign off on the proposal, all it would do is authorize the states to conduct the fisheries...the Commissions (ODFW and WDFW) would still have to decide whether or not to allow the commercials to have a season, or have one with the same impacts, or have one with more...they could authorize anything up to the limit set by NOAA-F, but don't have to.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

Can you provide us with some e-mail addresses for the commsioners here in WA?

Thanks

Contact the Commission:

Mail: 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone: 360-902-2267
FAX: 360-902-2448
E-mail: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Susan Yeager, the Commission Secretary, will generally forward any mail that goes to the above mail or e-mail address to all of the individual Commission members, but it can't hurt to ask her to do so, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

I have a copy of the Cindy's proposal which is many pages long and well prepared. I got it months ago but can't remember where I got it. Did you get one back then and where did it come from? It actually is quite professionally prepared and looks like it probably cost WDFW region 5 a bundle to assemble. If I wasn't a sports fisherman the proposal could look sensible.

The previous reference to the 21,000 steelhead killed in a previous Springer netfest was actually what prompted this new kill request. It was not that the gill netters and tangle netters stayed withing the 2% ESA rule and caught that many steelhead by accident (hahaha). They had a short net season and caught those steelhead pushing them way over the allowable bycatch....Oh Well!!! They would say. But this caused a huge uproar and really curtailed the next opportunity to net. So now they want to go back to what they did before when they caught so many steelhead in the process of accessing the healthy run of Springers. Once everybody saw that the only way the nets could catch more Springers was to kill an unacceptable level of ESA fish they had no choice but to ask for an exemption from the ESA rules which are based on science and not on giving the gill netters a bigger bounty at any cost.

I suspect alot of user groups on the Columbia would be licking their chops at the thought of tripling the ESA mortality number. Less of a problem for those who could care less about the survival of the wild fish.

Another way to look at this proposal would be to look at a scenario in Puget Sound or the ocean if the ESA limitations were eased and the kill of ESA fish was tripled to 6%. The seasons could be extended and expanded. The quotas could go way up. So maybe we could approach the commission that way. If you approve this ESA exemption for the commercials you should approve the same thing for the sports fishers and if you would not do that, why? Too many fish would be killed? Oh I see....So how many ESA wild fish killed is acceptable? Only the ones on the Columbia caught during the Springer net fishery? OK...I see , then it is a biased decision favoring a very small user group to the detrement of the other user groups.. Ah Ha,,,I see.

Dave -
I can understand your outrage at allowing impacts on ESA wild steelhead however is that concern just limited commerically caught winter wild steelhead?
You stated: "Why would they want to increase the kill of wild , endangered fish..."

I don't recall a similar resposne when the Methow was open to hatchery only season this fall - this clearly did result in a increased kill of wild, endangered fish. It would seem that your concern is only when those impacts are given to a non-sport fishery.

Don't get me wrong I not a fan of gill net fisheries and I certainly believe that the maximum economic benefit from those fisheries would be in a recreational fishery. It just appears that this "playing of the ESA card" in this allocation debate is another example of using ESA listing to lever benefits other than that for the resource and is a example of the abuse of that law. If one choose to strive for maximum ESA protection the creditable approach is to do so evenly across the board.

I think that the approach put forth in Todd's original posting frames the issue correctly as one of allocation.

Dave - I did not mean to single you out and I understand your reaction but I feel strongly such resposnes lead to a dangerous game in ESA and fisheries management.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you tight lines.
S malma

Smalma:

Your point is a good one and I can see why you would raise it. However, I believe my concern would be nearly as high if the same proposal were made in order to dramatically increase the sport season.

Like you, I am no fan of the nets. I believe we need to get rid of them. But I recognize that we sports fishermen kill endangered fish when we engage in C&R fisheries. How many we kill is, of course, a matter for discussion.

My thought is that we need to always look to a balance n between economic opportunity, recreational opportunity and conservation. If you follow my writing I'm sure you know that I think we all too often err on the side of the people not the fish. I have often been criticized by sports anglers for my willingness to close fisheries to protect endangered fish.

I believe that in this case the netters are doing a lot of damage, to the benefit of relatively few people. While the sporties are doing considerably less damage while benefiting many people.

I do not pretend to know what level of incidental kill is acceptable. But I am willing to go with the two percent originally used. Instinctively, it seems a reasonable approach. I absolutely would NOT support a tripling of mortality in order to extend the sports season and I would be willing curtail the sports season if that was what was necessary to protect the steelhead.

I always appreciate your posts. You make us
think, and that's a good thing.

Here is a bit more food for thought. Will the steelhead be able to rebuild if we stay at the two percent level? Would they rebuild, given the other problems they face, even if we entirely close all sport and commercial seasons on the Columbia River springer run?

Todd: I've sent my email and the following letter will go in the mail today.


Will Roehl, Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Blvd.
Olympia WA 98501-1091
f/c/o Susan Yeager 360 902 2267

Mr. Roehl:

It is with little motivation that I can even write this letter, because the gap between what I would consider to be sound management on behalf of the WFWC and the state of Washington’s most fragile runs of salmon and steelhead continues to widen---despite conservationist’s efforts to promote positive change. This dynamic has no doubt served to instill an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness in me. Nevertheless, I will submit the following:

The current proposal to raise the mortality cap on wild winter steelhead from 2% to 6% on the lower Columbia River is yet another gleaming example of poor management. We are at a time when the lower Columbia’s native steelhead runs are most in need of protection and taxing them further with this plan outrageous. As a lifelong resident who has sport fished Washington for twenty-five years and watched first hand, the once great runs of these fish decline to the pittance they are today, I urge you to drop this proposal. Please.

Sol

Smalma does have a good point, and I am no fan of the Methow fishery. If there are too many hatchery fish, we should make less, not subject the wild ENDANGERED steehead to another risk factor of a fishery.

However, I'm not sure the two situations are exactly parallel. The commercials have a fishery for hatchery spring chinook in the lower Columbia. They were given a dispensation for a 2% impact on listed steelhead in order to prosecute the fishery. We can argue about whether that is appropriate, but let's take it as a given for now. It has been clearly demonstrated that they can't prosecute the fishery in the current manner and stay within the 2% limit. Their proposed solution is not to modify how they are fishing, or face the fact that the spring chinook fishery may not be sustainable without unacceptable impacts to listed fish. Their solution is simply to ask for more accomodation.

Smalma may be able to correct me on this (and if he can I'm sure he will), but I'm not sure anybody has demonstrated that the Methow fishery has exceeded any mortality thresholds on wild steelhead that were set when the fishery was approved, or that anyone has then requested that the standard be revised so the fishery could continue.

People aren't saying the spring chinook fishery should be stopped because it impacts wild steelhead. They're saying the fishery should be held to its 2% impact threshold for listed steelhead, an impact threshold that WDFW/ODFW proposed, by the by.

Actually, I read the proposal as nothing but smoke and mirrors. I don't see how the managers can credibly claim that they'll be able to hold impacts below even 6% and still fully prosecute the fishery. They haven't been able to do it so far, and they collect and analyze the monitoring data so sloppily that their margin of error is likely larger than the difference between 2% and 6%.

The worst part of the whole thing is that this is all part of a scheme to certify their cockamamy tangle-nets and recovery-boxes as a bona-fide "selective fishery" technique. It simply doesn't work like they wish it did or claim it does. But if they can get it certified, we'll have a lot more problems than a 6% impact on LCR steelhead.

Aunty: you are right; their is some traction to be gained here at NOAA. They can be pressured not to approve the proposal, and people are working at that end. But Todd is right to that there is still the chance to get one or both commissions to rescind the proposal or simply not act on it. The knuckleheads at the depts are probably a lost cause.

Todd: Give me a call.

Ramon VB
Washington Trout