What Curt says.....It is a long term process we are working on and we have to correct years of problems. Too often, we respond to one contact point within an agency. I'm sure that most comments are at least reviewed, but filters and bias' do exist. I would suggest that you cc your comments to other contacts within the agency along with local legislators/business folks who are in a position to also ask questions that can help the process.

When commenting, either verbal or written, keep your comments and statements short, to the point, and respectful. Copies of supporting documents can be attached or handed out.

How many have read the SSMP?? The proposals are written to show two as "radical" approaches and two as reasonable choices.

Of the two remaining, one is the Status Quo - the "Business as Usual" approach and the other is the more enlightened Err on the side of Protecting Wild Steelhead with more WDFW involvement with other public and private groups that can have an impact on the river's wild steelhead and habitat.

DUH! Wanna guess which one will be chosen??? We also knew the WDFW were against strict Wild Steelhead Release at the prior Commission hearings because they said so. And guess what happened?

They'll (IMHO) end up with their Preferred option whether I individually, or with a group. either affirm or dispute it.

Not to say I'm not in agreement with their soon-to-be new mandate. I like the intent, but effective implementation will still require judgement. Unfortunately, with the same director and staff in place, their judgement will remain a constant.

Guess we'll all see what they do with it~

I think it's reasonable to sign up with groups that represent your interests and let them represent you at the meetings...it's hard, or impossible, for most folks to make very many of them...this topic (SSMP) at least has several meetings scattered around the state.

I'm not sure if this is true or not, but my impression is that the CCA is going to have a "war chest" and is going to sue WDFW into submission...remember, you only win lawsuits when you prove that someone is doing something illegal...you can disagree with policies, you can disagree with who the policymakers are, or how they formulate their policies, and you can disagree with the implementation of their policies...but if they're not doing anything illegal, then lawsuits won't do a damn thing.

I've heard folks say that CCA is going to do something to change the NoF process...how? It's not illegal...inefficient, unfair, slow, laborious, and particularly unsatisfying, yes...illegal, no. How does CCA intent to change it? Again, you can't just sue people because you don't like what they are doing...you have to point to a particular law that they are breaking, and prove that they are breaking it, and at best you can just make them comply with the law. You can't say "North of Falcon meetings should go like this...and we'll sue you to make you do it this way"...

Until the laws mandating WDFW's behavior are changed, there is always going to be a problem...for every law that says they need to protect and perpetuate species, there's another one that says they have to satisfy a particular standard to stop a fishery, and another one that says they have to provide so many hatchery fish, and another one that says they have to provide a viable commercial fishery, and another one that says they have to provide so much recreational opportunity...and they have their own definitions of what "viable" and "opportunity" mean...and just because it's not the same definition I would use doesn't mean I can sue them over it.

Fish on...

Todd

Yes Marsha, I do believe that a unified voice from sportfishers can be heard and can make a difference. But one problem is the many different opinions and beliefs that sportfishers have. Their diversity can be their own demise.

Curt,

I made that statement from the standpoint of wild steelhead and not necessarily my own. I agree that A1 would be the most restrictive of sportfishing opportunity and that wouldn't necessarily bother me if the plan worked. If I had to chose as written, I'd go with A2 because I think the VSP mangement plan will be better than MSH/MSY. Even though WDFW is mandated to protect fish and provide recreational opportunity, I don't believe it guarantees wild steelhead harvest. I believe there is plenty of other opportunity to harvest fish without the need to harvest wild steelhead. I don't like A3 because I don't think the status quo has worked nor how it could result in increased run sizes and escapements.

But I am glad that the date has been extended. As it was there was not much time to submit comments from the last meeting and the previous deadline.

DaveD: you were at the Sequim meeting too? That must have been you in the front row.

Curt: I still don't understand why you think VSP escapement goals would be lower than current MSH numbers? How can carrying capacity be less than harvest influenced capacity? You lost me on that one...

AuntyM -
yes I'm a retired fisheries biologist concerned with both the fish and fishing opportunities however was an avid angler long before a fisheries biologist and continue to be an avid angler. I realize very clearly that the audience here is quite diverse and am confident that there are some readers here that even more of a rabid conservationist than I just as there are those that are recreationists (and as DaveD points out there is a huge diversity within that group).

I suppose next you will be telling us that folks should not heed the thoughts of others who maybe something other than just plain fishing folks - people like guidess or tackle manufactors (retired or not). Let's get real here. Seems you think that at least some of those folks have something to contribute

Nowhere have I ever suggested folks should be attending all the meetings; rather that here is an opportunity to put one's oar in the water if they so desire. Given the amount rhetoric that goes on the various fishing sites I think it is clear that various aspects of steelhead management is important to a lot of folks here so yes it is disappointing the more folks could not find the time to provide their own 2 cents.

BTW - Who is it here that is pushing folks to sign up in the CCA so they can have a say in this State management and maybe see some changes? How is that any different from me encouraging folks to attend public meetings other than you agree with CCA and not the meetings. Why not take your own advice and realize that there is a diverse group of us out there and one size doesn't not fit all.

Tight lines
Curt

DaveD/Lowedown -
I think part of the issue here is exactly what is VSP. This is a new concept that has been around for less than a decade. My understanding that it was developed as an idea to measure when recovery may occur for ESA listed stocks - in short the minimum parameters needed for recovery. Unfortunately to date no one to my knowledge have been able to actually attach a number to what a VSP escapement might be for a given basin. Some of the fed bios/TRT teams might recognize when it is achieved or whether that some populations may be sufficiently large enough that they are confident that it would excpet minimum VSP paramenters to meet delisting criteria. In short meeting VSP parameters is what is needed to achieve ESA recovery - My hope would be that the preferred alternative would provide more than that.; somehow I don't thing have populations on the cusp of recvoery (at VSP levels) will provide much in the way of fishing opportunities.

It is equally clear that whatever VSP levels might be it relationship to other common used escapement objectives will vary. For example those steelhead populations on the coast are not ESA listed so it should be clear that the VSP is lower than the current populations sizes there (VSP is less than MSH levels).

I think it is extremely important when talking about what MSH or carrying capacity levels might be like that they need to put into the context of under which survival parameters those values were determined. They vary considerably depending on quality and productivity of the freshwater habitats and over all survival in both freshwater and marine waters. Let's use the Snohomish basin steelhead as an example on how the above is extremely important.

In recent years the average escapement in the Snohomish basin has been less than 3,000. Since it is a listed stock I could assume that a spawning escapement of 3,000 would be below potential VSP levels.

When asked about what conditions were to be used for option #1 (carrying capacity) Jim Buck replied current conditons. For the last decade on the Snohomish no matter what the size of the escapements (those in the early 1990s were in the 6,000 range) as noted above the run sizes have average less than 3,000 fish - in other words under the conditons seen in recent years the carry capacity for winter steelhead in the Snohomish is less than 3,000.

The status quo escapement goal for the Snohomish prior to the ESA listing was 6,500. This was established in 1984 and established as a best guess at what MSH escapement levels (buffered) might be given the survival conditions were during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Sp let's review - under option one as currently written the escpaement objective would 3,000.

Under Option 2 it would also be asomewhat above 3,000.

Under option 3 it would be 6,500

If you ignore the labels for a second would you prefer an escapement objective for the basin of 3,000 or 6,500?

Clearly if some of the wording could be cleared up my assessment on the preferred alternative could well be different but at this point I can only respond on what is presented not what might be.

Tight lines
Curt

I'm still wondering what that "different" is...? Like I said, almost everything that WDFW does is a policy choice, or an implementation of a policy choice...things that they cannot be sued for.

That's most of their functions.

You don't seem to think that providing input during the planning, writing, or changing of policies is helpful for anglers, so that isn't the "different"...

What do you really think that CCA is going to do that is different? Do you somehow think that they will walk in and start telling WDFW what to do, and they will listen? What makes you think that the CCA will be able to dictate anything to anyone?

What are those "different possiblities" that you are telling Curt to open his mind to?

Fish on...

Todd

AuntyM -
I freely admit to being both stubborn and a bull dog when it comes to issues I believe in however I find it laughable that you feel that I unwilling to accept change. There is a pretty long list of former agency directors for example that could attest to my willingness to attempt to change the status quo or implement changes.

However I have been here in an attempt to provide information to folks on how to be a potential force for change (whether I agree with their agenda or not) in what we all freely admit is a flawed process.

If your and any others are successful in establishing different processes I will attempt to be just as diligent in those efforts as I'm now and hopefully I will be able to do so without resorting to name calling.

Tight lines
Curt

AuntyM -
Again as DaveD pointed out Washington State's sportfishers is hardly a homogenous group. Which steelhead interest group should the State try to please? WSC, Steelhead Trout Club of Washington , You, or me?

I believe that Jerry's comment

"Where in the hell are all the whiners and complainers when an impact can be made to the most important decisions that will affect steelhead for probably the rest of my lifetime? " was not aimed at the sport fishing community as a whole but rather that group of folks that have been pretty darn vocal that past WDFW policies was not representing their interest and who the vast majority had not taken advantage of an opportunity to provide some input.

Just curious just what legal mandate has WDFW not fullfilled. While you and I may agree that their attempts to fullfill those mandates are not what we would want given the diverse nature of the "sportfishing community" and other legal mandates, conflicting mandates and constraints placed on them by federal courts and State laws I would think it would be a difficult case to make that they are not fullfilling their mandates (which I think is Todd's point).

I found it interesting in virtually every case that I can think of that non-tribalfolks have successfully taken the State to court over there policies/decisions have won not because of the State's decisions but rather the inadequancy of the processes used by the State or lack of information. Might help explain why current processes are so cumbersome.

Tight lines
Curt

Marsha,

You're trying too hard...of course lawsuits can get things done, but only if the entity you're suing has broken the law...and of course policies can be illegal, but the great majority of them are not, and if those are to be changed, it's not by threatening to sue them for something.

You seem pretty peevish in this thread...maybe you feel like you're being heaped upon, I don't know...but do think that you are fairly well mistaken on several points, and if your support of the CCA is based on those mistaken points you, and others I'm afraid, will be very disappointed.

On a different board you opined that CCA would be able to first get rid of non-tribal gillnets, and then that would somehow open the door to getting rid of tribal gillnets...really? You don't really believe that...do you? CCA, nor anyone else, will be able to do that.

I'll repeat my point from above...you can't just sue people to make them do things, unless they are legally mandated to do them and are not...you also can't sue people to make them stop doing things, unless what they are doing is illegal.

Take the crab allocation issue...who do you sue? How? Under what law? The only way to change that is to either get a law passed, or get the Commission to change Dept. policy...and that happens by getting involved in the policy development/change/implementation process...which is what the WSC is doing with the Steelhead Management Plan, the topic of this thread.

Now maybe the CCA will get involved in crab allocation...they'll put together an alternative policy/plan, give it to the Commission, and persuade them that it is the best way to go...but that will entail doing exactly what you claimed has never worked...

On the issue of steelhead management, the policies have changed drastically in the past six or seven years, and are changing still...and I can guarantee you that it did not happen because of anyone in the Department.

It has happened, and is continuing to happen, through the diligence of citizens and citizen groups...and we've managed it the good ol' fashioned way; being very squeaky wheels, armed with facts and figures rather than emotion and unrealistic expectations.

Fish on...

Todd

Off there web site: CCA’s presence in the federal court system has been critical in conserving America’s fisheries. CCA’s legal defense fund has been used to defend net bans and the implementation of bycatch reduction devices, and to support pro-fisheries legislation and battle arbitrary no-fishing zones.



You may want to go do some research on that one Todd before you say they can’t. The CCA have, from my understanding. They are behind the stoppage of some major commercial netting in Texas and I believe Florida and a few other east coast commercial fisheries, and the fish have prospered very well. We all seam to think we know what’s best for fish restoration, but we keep fighting amongst our selves. I think Aunty is rite here and the CCA have proven them selves in other states, they have power were it counts, and that’s what we need to get heard, and Like she said POWER IS MONEY. Jim W

Jim,

There is ample opportunity to stop non-tribal commercial gillnetting...there is virtually zero opportunity to stop tribal gillnetting, which is what I was referring to above.

Marsha, chill out...just asking questions, and you're getting all jumped up...

Fish on...

Todd

I think that there will certainly be a continued and growing use of selective harvest techniques by tribal fishers, but they will do it in their own time, and on their own initiative...it won't happen with outlawing tribal gillnets, but they may be presented with options on how many impacts they can use, and how many are forecasted to be used depending on gear types...they're not stupid, and if they are presented with ways to harvest more fish than with gillnets, and can overcome the internal social and cultural biases in favor of gillnets, then they will use more beach seines, dip nets, purse seines, etc.

Fish on...

Todd

"IF they are successful here will that mean the end of tribal gillnetting too?

I'm not sure we can stop them in the short term but one wonders if it's outlawed to non-tribal, it might be possible to get it outlawed period."

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

That's the comment I was referring to...if you didn't mean that tribal gillnetting might be outlawed, then I guess I'm misreading that...what does it mean?

Fish on...

Todd

how much progress has been made since this thread?

I believe that majority of the runs in question have progressed to lower numbers.

The only progress made has been to curb recreational angling & give the tribes 90% of over-escapement & make sportfisherman believe they have a 50% of over escapement mortality rate.

In response to the original comment: Frustrated.

Believe me, I have lived there for 5 years of my life.

Lesson's learned:

WDFW/Commission is not concerned one bit about "what the recreational fishermen want." They know, no matter what, as soon as the season opens (no matter how crappy) the mass stops bitchin and trips over themselves to buy a license.

Public comment periods are held, not to listen, but because they are mandated by law. The Commission would just as soon have a tooth pulled as to endure a "public input" session. In fact, the most enjoyment they get from them is making fun of some to the "stupid comments" people make. They know that the recreational community is so engaged in fighting amongst it self, it will NEVER have the leverage to affect change.

The Commissioner's are appointed by the Governor, and serve at HIS PLEASURE. "HIS PLEASURE" means appeasing the tribes and lobbyist so that he gains political currency. The Commissioner's WILL NOT CROSS the governor.

And finally, most everyone who reads this is going to think I'm full of s#it, and will have some strong opinion about it. Which is alright, but is exactly why the recreational fishermen is the bottom feeder in the eye's of the WDFW/Commission and will always remain there. WE HAVE NO COALITION, NO LOBBY AND NO LEVERAGE.