Just got home from the Commission meeting and the results are a real mixed bag. The good news:

1. I saw several of "the usual suspects" - CFM, Hairlip, Todd, Homer2Handed, FishngPhysician, Jerry Garcia, Salmo. There was one guy with a Gamefishin.com hat on that I did not meet. I believe that Fishrlady testified. Thanks to all that got involved.

2. The Commercials did not get a 6% impact. Prior to the meeting, a compromise was reached that allowed a 4% impact. If the run forecast is to be believed, there are 540 wild steelhead that will make it to their natal streams that otherwise may not.

3. Region 5 had asked for the increased impact under the guise of "flexibility" in managing the fishery. Well, flexibility goes both ways. Due to an amendment offered by Comm. Schroeder the new language says that for this year the Commercial impact on ESA listed wild steelhead is 0 - 4%. We must remember this - official policy of WDFW now states that for this year a 0% impact is on the table. We all know that the only way to achieve 0 is to not fish. As we analyze the results of this fishery and testify to future years impacts, we must remind the Commission that 0% is an option.

The Bad News:

1. Other than Commissioner Tuck and to a lesser extent, Comm. Hunter - the rest of the Commission fell in lock step with Region 5 and the Dept.

2. Comments that were critical of Region 5 hurt us in this forum. The Commission and the Dept. "protected their own" in todays process.

Very rarely do you come away from a Commission meeting with all that you wanted in your hip pocket. Today was no different, but once again, thanks to everyone who gave of themselves and their time to be involved.

It was nice to see a few of the board members there.

They had the agreement worked out well in advance of the public input. This undermines the recovery of wild steelhead.

I felt like a member of the family just died.

Eddie, that's a great assessment. I was also at the hearing. I have not posted on this board for some time, but just finished a report on the hearing that may add to what has already been said. It is long, and although I'm not a regular member of your community, I hope it's not too out of place to provide this report on the hearing. I feel like it's important to get the word out on what our fisheries managers are doing, how they manage, and encourage everyone to get involved in the process.

----------- report ------------

The Report

It was standing room only, by my count, about 80 people from both sides of the issue, present in the room. 41 people signed up to provide testimony in the 3-minute per appeal format.

Guy Norman, SW Washington Regional Director, and Cindy LeFleur, Policy Director, first delivered the proposal and the rationale for the proposal. This included an onscreen powerpoint demonstration of the key points for their decision, and supporting data.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s position was that our state, in cooperation with the state of Oregon, should allow an increase in steelhead by-catch in order to make it easier for commercial (non-tribal) Spring Hatchery Chinook netters to reach their allowed limits. Under current policy, netters must stop fishing as soon as a 2% by-catch is reached. The new legislation would allow up to a 4% by-catch before stopping the fishery. Increased by-catch would only be used if wild steelhead limits exceeded the present 2% benchmark before Chinook goals are met. The rule would be a one-year test. The Department argued that management intent would be to remain at the lowest possible levels, and that 4% or 6% would not be a goal. Furthermore, the department believes that an increase would not register any additional impact on the recovery of wild steelhead.

Following their presentation, the commission asked a handful of questions, then began to hear public testimonies. As I followed along (I may have missed a few, or heard a name wrong) the following organizations had representation, and gave the following support or opposition:

Recreational Fishing Alliance (opposed)
Vancouver Wildlife League (opposed)
NW Sportfishers Association (opposed)
Flyfishers of Vancouver (opposed)
Bellboy Crab Co (supported)
Wild Steelhead Coalition (opposed)
Southwest Washington Anglers (opposed)
Clark County
Friends of the Cowlitz (opposed)
South Sound Flyfishers (opposed)
Recycled Fish (opposed)
Washington Trout (opposed)
Washington Chapter Trout Unlimited (opposed)
Commercial Fishing Advisory Council (supported)
Salmon for All (supported)
Waikiakum County
Doman Fish Company (supported)
Fish First (opposed)

Also, there were 14 individual anglers who did not cite representation of an organization who were in opposition to the increase. Among them were a commercial developer, someone with a family history of commercial harvest, a member of the Steelhead and Searun Cutthroat Advisory Board, a guide, and others. Eight individual / self-represented commercial fishermen or supporters of commercial fishing also provided commentary. They unanimously supported the increase in by-catch.

Following public comment, the commissioners made their comments. Here are a few paraphrased selections:

Director Jeff Koenings – felt that much of the “righteous indignation” from opponents of the measure was hypocritical, because data suggests that sport fishermen account for 4-6% of wild steelhead mortality. He also felt that opponents were harsh in their negative characterization of commercial harvesters, and in their language toward the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Other commissioners echoed Koening’s concerns.

Commissioner Bob Tack – This is a hard issue. When it’s a close call, I defer to the fish.

Commissioner John Hunter – “We’re all in this together.” Everybody questions the science, but it’s limited to your own perception.

Commissioner Ken Chew – “Any time there is an impact on a stock…it can be hard to bring it back.” Felt habitat was a key issue, looked favorably on a jump to 6% with hope it will stay to 2%, comfortable with trying it as a test since it’s limited to just one year.

Commissioner Pete Schroder – “What if we put all this energy and money into this, and NOAA decides to ignore us? That’s what’s happening here…I would feel uncomfortable taking away a tool from managers.”

Commissioner Clyde Mayer believes that the commercial fleet will get their allocation regardless of the increase, and notes that some tools available to managers had not been talked about.

Commision Chair Ron Ozument – “This is a resource that is owned by everyone.” He is comfortable that this was proposed only as a management tool, and finds comfort that it is just for one year. He supported WDFW science and their proposal.
Commissioner Fred Shoshoni supported the proposal and said that “we must be practical.”

Commissioner Pete Schroeder proposed the amendment of the rule to read that by-catch would be managed on a 0% - 4% basis rather than the then-existing language that it would be managed on a 2% - 4% basis. He argued that our goal should be to get as close to zero as possible, and that public would prefer to hear the lower limit in the legislation. That amendment passed with votes from all but Fred Shoshoni, who felt that a 0% goal was impractical, and threatened to tie the hands of staff and fisheries.

After other housekeeping and brief comments, the measure was put to vote, and was supported by all commissioners but Commissioner Bob Tack. So it passed, and in the upcoming Chinook fishery on the lower Columbia, the department can choose to allow a by-catch of 4% rather than 2% of the total allotment of wild winter steelhead for this season only.

My commentary

The science is suspect. We won’t know for sure (if ever) with any accuracy until June, according to Cindy LeFleur, program manager for the WDFW, whether or not the ceiling of 4% was met or exceeded, because the study will be based upon redd counts. There is no accurate way to assess on-the-fly what percentage of the total return is being harvested. Those percentage numbers do not refer to percentage of fish in nets, they refer to percentage of fish that are supposed to spawn in order for wild stock recovery to occur.

I was impressed with the quality of arguments and give high praise to all who came out to present an appeal to the commission to reject this measure. Congratulations on a valiant attempt, at least it’s only one year.

I am frustrated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife – and NOAA – to base recovery plans on arbitrary numbers – 2%, 4%, 10%, etc. Let’s not base management decision upon rigid, arbitrary policy guidelines that don’t have the capability to be intuitive. Let’s use observation of facts and situations to determine legitimate stewardship of the resource. We have a low-water year and a lower-than-expected forecast for fish return, why would we want to INCREASE allowable fish kill, this year especially?

Finally, the nail in the coffin to the credibility of the sport anglers, who comprised the near-unanimous majority of those who objected to this new rule, was that the Wild Steelhead Moratorium did not pass. As a result, sport anglers kill wild steelhead, so who are we to say the commercial fleet can’t do it? This makes me very upset. Those sport anglers who could not give up killing wild steelhead when they had the chance, the mayor of Forks and her contingent, who went to bat to keep killing fish, not only continues to allow for a preposterous sport harvest – it probably is the key element that enabled this detrimental commercial “by catch” harvest. So it has an increased effect. WE MUST ALL STOP KILLING WILD STEELHEAD IF WE WANT TO AID IN THEIR RECOVERY.

In conclusion, here is the testimony that I offered to the commission, for the record. Those others of you who have notes on what you shared, please be encouraged to add your appeal to the commission here. We will have to build our case once again for next year, assuming public input is allowed if/when the measure returns in next year’s cycle.

-------------------------------------------------------

I’m Teeg Stouffer, Executive Director of Recycled Fish, a nonprofit corporation for improving wakened fisheries and sustaining strong ones.

I would first like to thank you for maintaining this forum in which we public can be involved in decision making for our resources. I would further like to thank each of you as individuals for the careful attention you are giving those of us who have come to comment today.

With regard to resource management in general, because I believe it speaks directly to the heart of this issue, I want to address the Commission and the Department directly to encourage you to be advocates first and foremost for the long-term health of the resource. Let me clarify that further by saying that I am not speaking to you on behalf of sport fishermen. Nor am I speaking on behalf of commercial or tribal harvesters. I am speaking on behalf of the resource and the users as a whole, and I hope that you’ll also take that kind of holistic approach to management – including this matter specifically. I am certain – and I know that you will agree – that when the fish thrive, so do we, the users of the resource. Allow me be bold and say that when you make short-term decisions that serve any harvest group – sport or commercial – at the expense of the resource, over the long term, nobody wins. I think it’s clear that past performance has borne this out by now.

With regard to this specific issue – I strongly oppose an increase of allowable bycatch of endangered wild steelhead. I humbly and respectfully ask that you not advocate for an increase in wild fish bycatch. It is an immutable fact that there is a relatively small number of wild steelhead remaining in the Columbia River System as compared to historical numbers. It is an immutable fact that if we kill more of them, there are fewer capable of reproducing, which hinders their recovery, for which I – and others like me – are still hopeful for.

Today, the department has tried to contrast “management intent” against “NOAA limits” but wants “flexibility.” Let me add my voice to the strong majority who says NO INCREASE is acceptable, because ANY INCREASE means FEWER FISH and endangered fish need the BEST CHANCE for RAPID RECOVERY.

For the Department of Fish and Wildlife to continue its appeal for a three-fold increase in allowed steelhead mortality is to advocate for short-term gains for commercial anglers, which brings me back to my initial plea. Please make the long-term recovery of this fishery your top priority. Please let nothing stand in the way of it. Please let it be the one issue that “trumps” all other issues, and please know that while there may be kicking and screaming in the short-term, you will be building a legacy of recovery – something for which you will be forever applauded.

I have faith that you will act prudently and wisely here. You have my humble gratitude and respect. Thank you.
__________________
You can be a fish recycler too. Let 'em swim. http://www.recycledfish.org

It was pretty disappointing, and while I was more optomistic than usual in controversial issues, I was not too surprised.

The Commission really focused on the duration of the new policy guidance...they asked staff several times "this is for just one year, right?", and staff responded "well, uhhh...uhhh", then they asked "one year, right? Expires on 12/31/05, right?", and staff responded "Well, kind of, but, uh..."...

And then the Commission stated, on the record several times, that they are talking about one year, and one year only, and not a day more...then voted on the increase.

Tuck was the lone holdout to the bitter end, vote eventually becoming 8-1 for the increase to 4%. Schroeder and Hunter were quite critical of the increase, as was McBrayer. Hunter tried to sneak in an amendment to make the increase to 2%, rather than 4%, which would have amounted to the status quo...but it was voted down. Schroeder got the amendment changing it to 0-4% to keep lower mortality rates on the table.

Ozment and Roehl were predictable, and vociferously defended Reg. 5, the commercial fishers, and the staff for putting up this proposal.

Ledgerwood did her usual, which is say nothing, not participate in the debates or discussions at all, and then vote along with Roehl and Ozment. Shiosaki was no different...praised the staff and went with the increase, his usual.

Ken Chew was a disappointment, frankly...he's obviously really, really smart, but it's obvious that he really didn't read up and educate himself on the issue...since he didn't have a firm grasp on what was going on and the ramifications of his vote, he just said that it was hard and he'd have to go with the experts (WDFW Reg. 5 staff).

So...there we were.

The press was there...reporters from the Olympian and the Tacoma News Tribune.

Fish on...

Todd

Here's a post-meeting announcement...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Preparations have been under way for about a month now, and while the hope was that it wouldn't become necessary, the reality was that it was quite likely that it would.

After today's Commission vote agreeing to raise the wild steelhead bycatch impacts to 4% for the LCR commercial gillnet fishery, the die was pretty much cast.

Unless something good happens with the Oregon Commission next Friday, and they go against the commercial fishermen, NOAA-F, WDFW, the WDFW Commission, and agree with the sportfishing and conservation community to not allow the increase in steelhead bycatch, then we are suing NOAA-Fisheries over the adequacy and scope of their Biological Opinion on the issue.

Who "we" is, is a great cross section of various conservation and sportfishing groups. While some groups have not yet confirmed their participation yet, many have, and here is a partial list (which is subject to change over the next few days):

The Wild Steelhead Coalition, State Board Puget Sound Anglers, Washington Trout, Native Fish Society, Northwest Guides Association, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Clark/Skamania Flyfishers.

A couple of the above are "in", but must confirm it with their full Boards of Directors, and there are a few more who have expressed interest, but have asked to not be listed until they are confirmed.

If you are looking for particular strategies at this point, please realize that I won't be able to tell you anything...at least not until we have actually filed the complaint, which should be mid-week, next week.

Be assured, however, that the fight is not yet over, and that there are several tools left in the tool box, starting with the ODFW Commission, and ending with a lawsuit. In a perfect world, this would be taken care of without a lawsuit being filed...but it is clear we live in a far from perfect world on issues such as these.

As such, we are keeping all options open at this point, and will use all means at our disposal to fight any increase in bycatch of wild steelhead by the Columbia River gillnet fleet.

Fish on...

Todd

Fish Recycler

Nice post!

I was the one from Steelhead/Cutthroat Policy Advisory Committee

Hans

Sorry I didn’t introduce myself; I had something on my mind today. But I sat right behind you at the last two Commission Meetings.

I, too, was at the meeting this morning but had to leave early. I was able to put some names with faces and apologize for not having the opportunity to visit with you.

I screwed up by not signing a testimony sheet. I did sign the attendance sheet and thought (my mistake) that it was for testimony. That said, the testimony that I was able to listen to before I had to leave was on the whole, very good.

The comment about the shots taken at Region 5 and staff impacting testimony is on target. It feels good, but it can weaken your position. Best to stick to the facts.

I'm curious if any others who were there might feel the same as I do about Ozment skipping the public testimony at the start of the meeting. I wonder why the sign-up sheet wasn't posted as it appears it should have been by staff. It gave Ozment the out to preclude any input on other issues, such as the Makah, to the Commission this morning. I understand that the Friday morning session (I was in another meeting upstairs on Puget Sound Halibut season structure) was "lively" to say the least. FNP got a statement in during his testimony on the Lower Columbia issue which I appreciated.

Sounds to me like "The Commission" is scared of the Makah and don't want to lose any leverage, if any, that they might have. The Duck

Bushbear

There wasn't any one signed up for the public comment on the Bull Trout issue, most of us sign on for tangle-net issue

This was my first meeting... what an eye opener! There is definitely commercial bias in the Commission

I was astonished at the amount of opposition yet 0-4 percent was passed! Unbelieveable! IMO... if we have ESA listed fish, even one fish is too many. Up to 4-percent?

I learned a lot and rest assurded vow to become more involved with the issues at hand.

H2H

There was no input taken on the Bull Trout presentation. It was an informational item for the Commission.

Item #14 on the agenda, just before the BT presentation, says "Open Public Input" and the blurb below says "The public is encouraged to share views of the Department programs and topics of concern during this portion of the meeting"

I know that it could have gotten contentious, but I was hoping that those who didn't make the Friday meeting and wanted to present their views on the Makah issue would have had their chance before the Commission moved on to the rest of the agenda. From the posts on this site the past couple of days, I know that some folks were thinking about making a statement or two.

I stand corrected

I just sent the following e-mail to the Commission website this evening:


I was disappointed that there was not a time for public input at the meeting this a.m. (Item 14) before the Bull Trout presentation was made. I know that some folks made the trip to be able to present their views on the Makah over-harvest issue and I understand that it was a topic of discussion during the Friday morning session. I know how tight your schedule was and there were a lot of folks signed up for testimony on the Lower Columbia issue, which I’m sure extended your day, but it would have been appropriate to have allowed for a limited number of comments before going into the rest of the agenda.

Downriggin',

"This was my first meeting... what an eye opener! There is definitely commercial bias in the Commission

I was astonished at the amount of opposition yet 0-4 percent was passed! Unbelieveable! IMO... if we have ESA listed fish, even one fish is too many. Up to 4-percent? "

Welcome to the wonderful world of fisheries politics...

I saw you there, but didn't get a chance to say "hi"...which happened a lot today. I feel like I spent more time out in the hallway talking strategy and planning for next week then I did "meeting and greeting", which is cool, but I saw you and wanted to say hi.

If you keep comin' down, I'll be sure to say "hi" next time, and the first round's on me after the show.

Fish on...

Todd

My take on what the WDFW staff told the commissioners today is this:

"We really have no intention of netting hatchery kings to the point of exceeding the 2% steelhead impact we currently have in place.

We just need the "flexibility" of the higher imact to disguise our ineptness in managing the run in-season. That way no matter how badly we bungle it, when the post-season numbers come out, we still come out smelling like a rose."

I defy anyone who attended that meeting today to interpret WDFW's presentation any other way!

It was the most embarrassing and pathetic case that they laid out. The case against their policy was S-O-O-O-O much more compelling. I was really disappointed on how the final vote came down. With the exception of Commissioner Tuck, these men were no friends of the fish.

Responding to a previous post, the president of Clark-Skamania Flyfishers testified and I testified for the FFF Steelhead Committee. It was one of the most disappointing days of my life, given the quality of our position, the time we prepared, and the tenor of our testimony. I feel that the Director was way off base in saying that testimony was unduly harsh regarding Region 5 staff, especially given the poor quality of their testimony and their failure to provide river-specific escapemant data, which was specifically requested by the commission at the January meeting.

I was there, and was the last person to testify at the final public input at 3:15 PM. I told them how upsetting it was to hear of the Macah incident. They seemed to be genuinely concerned, and apparently gave the diirector quite a grilling on Friday.

I think the Macahs burned the director (and us) big time. He took a real licking over this issue and has probably set up a Macah dart-board in his basement.

I believe all we can do is boycott the place.

Doc... It would be hard for anyone to argue what was presented. The outcome arrgh! Everyone that opposed had solid points. The Commies (commercials) had very weak arguments.. My favorite was the gal who said, "Alcohol was a contributing factor."

I was disappointed in the presentation myself. Hard to follow, zero statisitics, and a total lack of proof! Cathy LeFleur (Columbia River Policy Coordinator - What a title!) proved she has very little knowledge... "I am unsure," I do not know," etc... I felt the testimonies recognizing this were well deserves and justified yet the Commission disapporved of the comments and recognized their hard work instead. Yeah right!

By the looks of the chart she presented, there was a definite overlap in the runs... If I remember correctly, the numbers for both Steelies and Springers was 2K at the change of mesh sizes. 4% of ESA listed Steelies is still quite high IMO.

Two thumbs up to you all!!

I am going to say something that many will disagree with, but that ain't new, either.

To those who spoke unfavorably toward the Commission.....KUDO'S !!

How will the kill of wild steelhead be counted? I read that the fisherman can not keep the fish so is this the honor thing again, let the fisherman count there kill and report back?