I was on the panel... Spent most of my mike time on points 1) and 3) discussed in my orig post

Quote of the morning, for sure.

I didn't provide testimony before the Commission today. I'm still pissed @ Region 6 "Harvest @ any cost management" and the NOF misdirections.

Yes…

It was brought up by Rivrguy in his closing remarks of the panel portion.

Results shared on some new tables that debuted for the first time today (no advisors had yet seen it). Presented as allocation recommendations from sports and comms for the non-tribal share… summarized in 2-tier fashion…. large run size and small run-size scenarios for each stock.

Most notable was that they actually showed that before a single hook or a single white net is deployed, the basin is already allocated 58% commercial (tribal piece = 50% treaty {QIN} and 8% non-treaty {Chehalis tribe}).

Predictably, comm's recommended larger shares for nets and sports recommended larger shares for hooks. DOH! The part that PA tried to interject is that somehow these stakeholder recommendations should somehow serve as sideboards for determining final allocation…. that the end product should produce allocations somewhere within the bounds of these preliminary stakeholder recommendations.

That clearly ain't gonna happen

So in the end, the primary objective of this meeting was NOT fulfilled.

That is, the commission was NOT able or prepared to give the working group any objective sideboards to better define the scope/depth/breadth of the policy we are trying to develop.

The discussion simply opened up more questions than it provided answers.

Commissioners now have a month to get back to us on their guidance as to how the working group should proceed.

That said, the message I heard from their comments is that they will ALL be demanding better conservation…. and that once conservation objectives have been fulfilled (with the exception of commissioner Smith) the socioeconomic considerations should weigh heavily in the allocative arena.

PA said most of the harvest >50% of Grays harbor Stocks(species) are harvested offshore, Alaska and Canada before returns cross the bar.

Doesn't this show the commercial interest has been served before the returns cross the bar? Why even allow the commercial method inshore?

I believe it would be better to have terminal fisheries once the stock /species have self sorted.

Canada catches WA fish 'cause AK takes Canadian fish. Alaska says they are eating in Alaskan waters???

We are left fishing out of escapement? Something needs to change coast wide!

I am a veteran. Semi-retired, cant live on the allowance.

Fishing for me has been my therapy. I learned to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Wish I could trust PA and Region Six. Is there a way to provide a no confidence vote?

I believe what he said is that 50% of the CWT's are recovered in AK/BC… specifically SE-AK and WCVI.

What we know to be certain is that SE-AK and WCVI take about 75% of the harvested GH chinook. Count on it.

And yes, while it is largely commercial, the rec troll fisheries in those regions contribute significantly to the northern intercept fisheries on this stock.

As I said in my testimony, the outside harvest is already largely commercial. The inside harvest is the same way. Before a single white net or hook is deployed in the basin, the fish swimming past Westport are already allocated 58% commercial.

So yes, even without a cowboy gill net fishery in GH, the public demand for commercially caught kings is already being served…. by northern intercept troll fisheries on the outside and by tribal gill net fisheries on the inside.

So as Todd so rightly points out, there is no real need to pile another commercial take in there… esp when it comes entirely at the expense of the rec share. Unfortunately, the current commission NOF policy begs to differ.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3608.html

"Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries."

So do you feel change will come from these sessions or does it feel like a check the box for WDFW?

Todd and I agree on the no commercial fishing in the estuary.

And the policy is not being followed by Staff. 1st bullet point.


How is the current model sustainable?

"Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries."

That was run through by Anderson last February I think with little to no public input or even knowledge of it was happening. So my assessment of the process. The Commission is involved, looking at the process and has not made up it's mind about anything yet. The end product is going to depend upon the participation of all in the fishing community in driving the solution to a science based plan for escapement and guidelines for harvest. Allocation will play a role and a rather large one as to who kills what where and how.

Predictably, comm's recommended larger shares for nets and sports recommended larger shares for hooks. DOH! The part that PA tried to interject is that somehow these stakeholder recommendations should somehow serve as sideboards for determining final allocation…. that the end product should produce allocations somewhere within the bounds of these preliminary stakeholder recommendations.

Now that bit I called BS on in the first 10 words out of my mouth. It was and attempt to ram through policy guidelines that are not reflective of comments be it Adviser or public. That folks is the WDF&W Director's true form. Frankly it sucks on multiple levels.

Hey, we agree, perhaps. IMHO the sideboards are a diversion tactic to gloss over the lack of natural spawners.

Todd, Doc, and I gave public input to the Commission years ago. Perhaps the Commission will revisit this public testimony.

I am a veteran. I will outlast the current mindset!

Revisit indeed….nearly 5 years ago to the day!

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post466390

A different set of players then, (now virtually all gone) but Chair Wecker and Commissioner Mahnken were there, and they REMEMBER!

My oh my, don't the wheels of progress turn EVER so slowly in natural resource management. Maybe this time we finally bring the issue to an appropriate closure with a formal commission policy to direct/guide the agency to a better management strategy.

Overall, I thought the conversation was good this morning, but the Commission has a lot to learn in not much time if they are to be expected to make solid decisions about Grays Harbor.

A few quick observations about the Commission, to whom I spoke and listened for the first time today:

1. It's a good thing this process is underway. They seem to have good intentions, but with the exception of Wecker, they had next to zero understanding of the issues affecting the Grays Harbor basins prior to this morning's hearing. A bit disappointing, but also cause for hope.

2. They do seem unanimously committed to conservation. Excellent.

3. Most of them didn't seem to know much about NOF, which suggests they simply trusted Region 6 staff's recommendations and applied the rubber stamp to this season's plan. Eye-opening.

4. They seemed eager to learn more and get actively involved. Great.

5. Commissioner Smith's closing expression of "frustration" with repeatedly hearing economic arguments came across as arrogant and condescending. Seemed to me that if we were all wasting the Commission's time, he could have pointed that out sooner, as opposed to waiting for the closing remarks. Fortunately, he didn't seem to get a lot of atta boys from his colleagues for his assertion that economic considerations would be out of the picture. I suppose he was right to say the Commission doesn't set budgets, but I imagine the people who put him in his seat are interested in how the Commission's decisions affect them economically.... Oh, well. I digress. It was only a first impression; there's plenty of time for redemption (as if anyone should care what I think).

As much as I appreciate the dedication of the sporties who did show up today, I was very disappointed in our turnout. (Obviously, the ill or otherwise unable are excepted from the following rant.)

We've all heard the excuses (some of which are valid), but for Christ's sake, people, this was a Saturday morning. Public comment was over by 10:30- still plenty of time to go home, take care of your crap, and watch football. Olympia's too far to drive? BS! All of you drive farther than that almost every time you go fishing, and the commissioners came from all corners of the state. If you really care, you CAN get to at least one of these meetings. It's pretty hard, as good as eyeFISH, Rivrguy, and others are at stating our case, for us to claim we represent a majority when the commissioners and WDFW outnumber us in the room at every public hearing.

The sport side will only have a precious few opportunities to address the Commission (without WDFW filters applied to our arguments, anyway). We need to take full advantage of those opportunities, and that means giving up a few hours of our personal time to show up in numbers and repeat unified arguments until the commissioners puke and beg for mercy. No matter how busy you think you are, you CAN do it... At least once.

Thanks FF02 for being one of the few doing the heavy-lifting for the many.

If it's any consolation, two of the absent commissioners are very much up to speed on the issues in GH.

That is good to know. In a way, however, many of them being less informed could work in our favor; IF enough people show up, we can program their brains with all the "right" stuff. They do seem interested, and that's probably the best we can hope for.

I don't want to claim to be doing much heavy lifting. I'm just there to fill a seat and echo the folks who've been championing our cause for a decade or longer. It really is quite easy. It just frustrates me that, as much (justified) bitching as we do about the status quo, the vast majority of us aren't even willing to do that much.