Oh I thought it was about his job performance not just PS Steelhead. Have fun removing a Director on a single issue other than malfeasance let alone convincing the Governor who has the final say. As to change it is not always what one thinks it will be.



There's an old sea story about a ship's Captain Who inspected his sailors, and afterward told the first mate that all his men smelled bad from body odor... ...........The Captain suggested perhaps it would help if the sailors would change underwear ........... occasionally.

The first mate responded, "Aye, aye sir, I'll see to it immediately!" the first mate went straight to the sailors berth deck and announced, "The Captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear."

He continued, "Pittman, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowski, and Brown, you change with Schultz."

THE MORAL OF THE STORY:
Someone may come along and promise "Change", But don't count on things smelling any better.

Indeed. Remember that WDFW Director is an appointed position, which means cronyism will always be at play. The current makeup of the Commission seems to be largely neutral (which should be a good thing). I think the reason we get the shaft from WDFW, time and time again, is the language in their current legislative mandate:

* Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats.
* Provide sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.

The first point is pretty neutral, even if it is next to unattainable. The second point appears neutral, but the reality is that there is no requirement implied that the opportunities be EQUAL. There is also no requirement to manage opportunities according to what will provide maximum benefit to State and local economies, which is why our arguments about economics (frankly, our strongest argument) fall flat, time and time again. Those who were present at the Commission meeting to discuss Willapa/GH may recall Commissioner Schmitten (on whom I'm none too smitten) vocally reinforcing that fact, essentially dismissing any further economic arguments as a "waste of time."

The thing is that "opportunity" just doesn't cut it as a meaningful mandate. As long as there is water open to fishing somewhere, an opportunity exists. Pretty low bar right there (although I will admit even that's getting difficult for the Department to provide, considering the ever-growing list of ESA protections they must consider). It's clear that the Puget Sound hatchery debacle will lead to significant losses of opportunity, but as long as other opportunities exist, WDFW's mandate is met.

Sport advocacy groups are lobbying the Legislature to get economic considerations factored into the mandate, but it's going to be tough to out-spend the deep-pocketed commercial lobby. Seems to me this is what needs to change if we're to get a fair shake at NOF or something better than a deaf ear to which to express our concerns over the PS lawsuits.

I'm thinking Phil Anderson is feeling the heat......sooner or later his bias toward the NT commercial fleet........is going to lead to his "being removed as Director".

Will be interesting to see if Phil gets involved in the Willapa NOF process?????

Time tells all............

The non treaty commercial fleet represents a significant economic activity within the State's economy. It provides thousands of living wage jobs for those who directly participate in the many fisheries within the state, as well as all of the ancillary businesses who take care of the catch once it hits shore, and provide services and supplies to the industries directly involved with the fisheries. Westport also has the largest sardine fishery on the West Coast.

Ignoring the economic value of the commercial fishery does nobody any good. I also don't believe Phil is ignoring the economic value of the recreational fishery either.

Logging in the 70's and 80's became obsolete as the forests dwindled.

I would think his bias would fall towards the sport side being a former charter skipper and boat owner. Explain more please.

I've occasionally expressed to friends/fellow sporties that I think we may be pointing our fingers at the wrong institution/individuals when we blast WDFW as being biased toward the commercials. I've also expressed that I'm glad I don't have their job at NOF time.

As I said earlier, the Director is appointed by the Commission. But who appoints members of the Commission? The Legislature. To whom does the Legislature answer? The tide may eventually turn, but for now, the loudest voices on fisheries management issues are those whose campaigns benefit from the status quo.

I also think we (sporties) have made it easy for the status quo to continue by continuing to purchase fishing licenses, despite the fact most of us are frustrated with the lack of fish available when we get opportunities to fish. As long as there's hope, we'll keep buying in (I know I will). In the world of revenue, all that matters is that the revenue comes. If we really want to put the heat on, we'll have to stop providing that revenue. That's our only real power play in this game at present.

Legislature? Don't you mean Governor?

The Governor appoints, the Senate confirms. The confirmation process has driven a few Commissioners out over the years.

Good thing they planted a chit load of hatchery trees, because logging is booming around these parts.

Most couple the forest service / owl thing as the end of timber and in some places that was so. Private holdings are primarily in tree farms on 40 year rotations for harvest plus some thinning. It is mechanized and the equipment is much smaller and much faster than the old slack line & high lead towers and LESS EMPLOYESS are needed.

If your in Grays Harbor the two largest land owners blew through the rotation harvesting for $$$ and then the big wind storm blowdown run it down more although most was salvaged. So dependent on location and age group of the trees plus the land owners harvest plan it can or not be more or less. The most conservative large owner harvest plan is Green Diamond ( Simpson ) the least was always Weyco.

Or, more commonly, the Senate fails to take action and the appointees continue to serve at the discretion of the Governor. Chair Wecker should have been confirmed long ago while Jennings should have been gone (at the latest) after his first confirmation hearing based upon his lack of ethics.

But it is the Governor who appoints!

Oops. I stand corrected on who appoints the commissioners; I was mistaking confirmation for appointment. Either way, the point was, appointed officials are always beholden to their appointers, who are beholden in turn to their campaign contributors. That's how questionable legislation and administration happen.

So... Have any of you done anything to voice your concerns over how things are going with the fisheries?

I'd be interested to hear what's going on.

Oh, and by the way, I haven't heard a damn thing from my letters except an auto response from the secretary of the commissioners office stating how happy they are to hear from me. After all, it's feedback from the little people that has made the fishing soooo great!

The writing is on the wall.

The Great and Powerful Oz, could give a rats ass about the sport fishermen.

We just don't matter, because no matter how much crap they throw at us, we just keep on being thankful that, at least, we still get to fish!

The only thing WDFW MAY listen to is a lack of license sales. As long as we keep buying licenses, which funds them, they get the feedback that what they are doing is right.

In my experience, money is the only thing which is listened to.

I was told years back by a previous Director that WDF&W counts on this fact. No matter how dismal the recreational inriver fisher will by a license. Nets in front 7 days a week turning your fishing trip into a boat ride or hiking in nature no matter, we still buy that license! Marine is the same just requires a bit more hype commonly known as BS!

I go to meetings at least annually, and have spoken rather forcefully to get things done, along with a lot of help from others who are similarly minded. I, and others, also regularly attend senate and house hearings on WDFW related issues.

In the world of politics your perspective (as cynical as it is) is probably pretty close to reality. That said, having attended a number of Commission hearings over the past few years I don't perceive the Commissioners (generally) as pushing personal agendas (Jennings was an exception but he is deservedly well out of it now). Do I agree with all of their decisons? No. Do I think they occasionally respond disproportionately to the minority squeaky wheel and/or staff who may have personal agendas? Yes.

But I also believe that the majority of the Commissioners are in it for altruistic reasons and not personal gain.

Now, back to the original issue. What we do not know is what Director Anderson may have been discussing on this issue with the Commission over time leading up to the WFC lawsuit and settlement. That is, what did they know and when did they know it? I would like to believe that Anderson has kept them informed and had their concurrence even though I may disagree with the settlement. But if he dropped this on them at the last minute forcing them into reluctant concurrence it may not bode well during his next performance review.....we shall see.

Agreed, Larry. I didn't mean to paint the Commission as a whole as commercially biased. The people who decide whether and for how long they keep their seats on the other hand....

At one time, WDFW did the hire, train, promote from within route. More recently, the pattern is to hire and train at the entry/technical level but to bring in policy/executives from the outside. Not only does this put a ceiling on promotion but it also constructs a leadership that has not grown up within the agency, has not had to deal with stakeholders in the field, and so on.