That letter wasn't written by him at all, only signed.

My guess is that a thick envelope and a case of scotch were involved.

Unless Sporties are willing to all pitch in more than they do now (We're talking about a group that bitches loudly about $0.15 Corkies being overpriced), lots and lots more, airing primetime TV ads, newspaper features, billboards, and greasing many an Olympia palm.

I frankly don't see it happening as I know too well most WA sporties would rather put their hard-earned $100 towards filling up their Truck & Boat's gas tanks and buying a halfrack of Busch Light.

Where as the Commies, they aren't nearly so pennywise and poundfoolish, they know (Its been an American Corporate Practice for 175 years at least) that by banding together into what used to be called a "Trust" but is now called a 'business association' with a smirk. This is where all the owners of the 'competing' businesses meet together, set market prices, wages & supply costs, agree on legislative goals, and set quotas, etc. They aren't so stingy and to let a few thousand bucks of chump change here and there come between them and $15 million annual Profit.

Would you spend $15,000 in Olympia to pick up $15,000,000? Yeah thats what I thought.

They do attend the meetings. I sat next to the owner of Bob's in Longview last go around. Sportco and other retailers,Three Rivers marine, even the owner of North River boats took time from the busy schedule to testify to backup the NSIA representation. It appears to me like DFW aways manages to schedule meetings like this while the boat or sportsman's shows are going on; vendors are are streched out covering the retail location plus the show.

Kudos to the folks going the extra mile to represent the a more responsible use of our public resources.

Todd -

It's coffee this morning, thinking about the other aspect of the letter that has been overlooked. In paragraph two the senator reminds the commission that they are legislatively directed to treat commercial fishermen and sports fishermen in a balanced manner. That is true and probably difficult to change. It is notable though that it says commercial fishermen, not gillnetters.

IMO there are two approaches to achieve a balanced treatment. Both would require an agreement with Oregon, a sort of transboundary fisheries treaty. The easy approach for the spring chinook fishery is to have no sport or commercial mainstem fishery below the I-5 bridge or maybe even below the first dam. The lower river fisheries would be terminal area fisheries in tributaries, with spring chinook hatchery programs, in both states. The only mainstem commercial fishery would be the upriver tribal fishery.

A better approach, but one that would require legislative work, would be a commercial hook and line fishery. Participating boats would require a permit, fishermen would need individual permits, and a strict catch tracking system would be necessary. I would imagine a system that required an immediate jaw tag in a retained fish, logging the boat permit number, fisherman permit number, the jaw tag number and the catch area. Fish could only be sold to licensed buyers and the tracking information would be recorded by the buyers and forwarded to the management agency. A landing tax on the fish sold could be directed to pay for the program. That would be a balanced solution with several advantages. The gillnet bycatch of wild salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon would be eliminated, bycatch would be treated the same as in the sports fishery. Immediate tracking of the catch would allow in season management as catch quotas were approached. If weak stocks were a concern genetic samples could be taken at the buyers. The program last year in the California coastal troll fishery demonstrated a turn around time of about two day to analyze samples and get info to the managers. The permit fees should be high enough to insure that only serious commercial fishermen would participate. I don't think there could be a more balanced approach. Sports and commercial fisheries would be almost identical except one would be more expensive to participate in, with the pay back based on fishing skill, proximity to the fishery, and a conservation ethic that promoted good fish runs.

WN1A, Interesting idea, too bad the commercial folks are limited to the gear DFW views as "viable."
Look, I was at the Cathlamet meeting as well as others for the last cycle. I came away with the impression that Staff promotes the most harmful, least sustainable methods of commercial harvest, viewing each species in issolation.

I'm sport fishing right alongside a County Commissioner and some commercial folks. Most of these guys see what's right before thier eyes as well. The "managers" dictate what is legal.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it ethcal.

Hans

WN1A, I'm hereby declaring you an honorary "Dismal Scientist" of the first order! That second idea you outlined makes great sense to me, both economic and conservation-wise. I am going to have to think out a good letter to write to Senator Hatfield...don't know exactly what I'm going to say, yet. But your idea in your last post is something that he should be aware of as a way to keep these commercial fishers fishing without the bycatch related damage to wild stocks.

Myself, I am a sport fisher who happens to have a few commercial fishers as friends, and a whole lot more as neighbors. Commercial fishers have solidarity and motivation, and they are way better organized than us sport fishers.
I'm pretty new to this, but I can see that sport fishers as a whole have yet to get anywhere near being as motivated or organized; we are going to have to get over our differences (fly fisher vs. gearhead, kill & grill vs C&R, etc).

I have been trying to educate myself on all of this, trying to separate the emotional rants from the well thought out ideas. It's not an easy task, but thanks to all those who have seriously contributed their thoughts and ideas here.

AuntyM, Sent out a message to our legislators earlier.
I tried to articulate how we had sacrificed our land use only to see DFW Staff promote the remnants as bycatch.

One of the problems we have are the current statutes that WDFW operates under. While there is a broad resource statement about managing fish and wildlife in the state, the old Dept of Fisheries statutes are still on the books. They give legislators, staff, and commercial interests an opening to make their arguments that mandate support for commerical fishing interests.

I don't think it is the responsibility of WDFW to have to ensure someone stays in business, especially when the viability of the resource is at stake. The Commission needs to manage the resources of the state and if that means closing opportunities to take fish and wildlife, they should do that.

The legislative mandate is posted below. Under statutory construction as I understand it, words like "shall" tell you what you have to do. Words like "may" help the agency to set regulations. You will see "shall" in the first, second, and fourth paragraphs. It is good that the WDFW is mandated to protect, preserve, manage, and they shall conserve "..in a manner that does not impair the resource." The third paragraph, however, says "may authorize the taking..." if it does not "...impair the supply of these resources." The question to the Commission is whether or not the use of gill nets might impair the ESA listed runs to a greater extent than the selective fishery imposed on the sport fishing community.

I wish I could be there this weekend, but I can't. Good luck to those who will be representing the sport fishers.

**********************
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any bets, Ed Owens the commercial fishing lobbyist, wrote that letter for Brian?

WN1A - I like the way you are thinking.

The protocols already exist in the statutes for the Commission to set such rules on manner of take. It would be much easier (used loosely) for the WAC to be amended than to allow the legislature to get involved. There are inherent risks in establishing take rules by statute.

The biggest one is that if things change, for good or bad, you need to get new legislation to amend or repeal the old legislation. We're living with the problem we now have because the statutes that were administered by the Dept of Fisheries are still on the books and they give "strength" to the commerical lobby.

The Commission can make the regualtions more restrictive (and in many cases they should) but the question is whether or not such action would then see them pushed off the Commission only to be replaced by the representatives of the commercial sector like we've had in the past.

It all boils down to what is best for the resource and if the resource needs to be protected we all have to accept the fact that our recreational and commerical opportunities may become limited.

....and, we can't forget that the Fed's and the courts along with the tribes are also players and their rules can be different than ours. We can be more restrictive when federal rules are in place - we can't be more liberal.

If it was not written for him; I'd be surprized.

They used data from Martin's book?
The Church lady's husband was on a PBS rerun show not long ago. He said it was customary for the first fish to be taken home to each fisher's family. Wonder how those fish are accounted for?
Her earlier testimony was about how this was an economicly depressed area, lack of gillnet opportunity meant higher alchohallic and suicide rates in her area???

I remember her testimony--- what a bunch of crap.

Either Ed Owens or Mark Doumit and don't count out Sid Snyder , too! Did you know that Mark Doumit has a Commercial license in Alaska, too? He has the best of both worlds!!

Yeah, a load for sure, but they somehow found funds to build a new church at Skamokawa.
There was always this elderly lady that attended the meetings I attended before, now it looks like her family has taken over.

bushbear ... That is a good point, often what seems like a good idea can have unintended consequences. It is possible that if there was an interest in a commercial hook and line fishery that ODFW, WDFW, and some of the commercial fishery organizations good get funding from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council for a couple years to establish the fishery and evaluate it's success. The amount of money that is spent to maintain the fishery as it exist now, to reduce bycatch, to run hatchery programs, to monitor catch, and the cost of establishing allocation is far more than the NEV of the fishery. I think some of those costs can be reduced by a different commercial harvest technique. The REI would remain the same or maybe even go up.

The commercial fishing industry already pulled the plug on test fisheries to evaluate fish wheels and traps...I can't imagine they'd agree to test fisheries for something as grossly inefficent, and ineffective, as a hook and line commercial fishery.

Fish on...

Todd

I am quite aware of that story. Given the lack of cooperation maybe coercion is in order.

Given the lack of cooperation, extinction for this dinosaur gillnet fishery is in order.

In the LCR, that is the only solution that makes sense...the rest just cost massive amounts of money and have dubious chances for success.

The inriver net fishery is a relic of times gone by, and needs to end down there.

Fish on...

Todd

That's what my draft comments say.

Ike is in my district...sent him a email i think two days ago...got a response from one saying

Thank you for your email. We appreciate the time you took to contact
our office. Representative Haigh is currently out of town but will be
returning to Olympia next week and I will be sure she gets your message.

that was the only response so far...c