Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#970726 - 01/01/17 02:58 PM WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver....
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
... to discuss and vote on the fate of the bi-state CR reforms.

Mark your calendars NOW. Take some time to attend and let them know the policy should move forward as planned

If that's not possible for you, PLEASE submit comments on-line before Jan 6. If you want the EASY BUTTON....

https://www.votervoice.net/CCAPNW/Campaigns/49005/Respond

Or if you want to draft your own personal message, e-mail it to:

commission@dfw.wa.gov

It's a New Year, folks.... JUST DO IT!
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#970734 - 01/01/17 04:27 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Bay wolf Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 10/26/12
Posts: 1075
Loc: Graham, WA
Will make every effort to attend.
_________________________
"Forgiveness is between them and God. My job is to arrange the meeting."

1Sgt U.S. Army (Ret)

Top
#971242 - 01/09/17 09:11 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
January 8, 2017

To: Jim Scott, WDFW
Ron Warren, WDFW
Gentlemen-

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy offers the following comments for your consideration as the two of you develop a briefing document on options for the Columbia River Policy C-3620 for presentation to the Commission at its upcoming meeting in Vancouver. We start with our impression of fish management policy in the state and end with some economic factor considerations.

The primary philosophies of fisheries management in Washington State as understood by the Advocacy are inserted in the questions that are shown below. Our answers to each follow in italics.

1. Do the options being presented the Commission prioritize conservation over harvest? No. To the contrary, the options would present risk to steelhead, sturgeon and other species of bycatch.

2. Do the options focus harvest on hatchery stocks and encourage selective fishing methods? No. The gear being proposed includes non-selective gillnets and the targeted run is natural spawning Chinook. Additionally, continued use of non-selective gear will discourage the commercial fleet from development of selective fishing gears in the Columbia and elsewhere. The message that would be delivered to the fleet is a failure or refusal to develop selective gears will result in the Department "adapting" back to the non-selective commercial fishing of the past. Those willing or able to invest in alternative gears will have to compete and divide the fish with those who won't adapt. A disincentive for the fleet to develop selective fishing alternatives will result.

3. Do the options reflect adaptive management? Yes and No. Yes, if one defines adaptive management to mean the Department has a duty to regularly modify long term conservation efforts as a means to guarantee today's commercial gillnetters receive a certain level of profitability. No, if one realizes the commercial fleet itself has a responsibility to adapt to the ever-changing world of fishing economics. The Department and the public should not be expected to manage the state's natural resources in a manner that assures a certain level of guaranteed profit to any commercial entity. Adaptive management for fish and wildlife resources should not be defined as a means to justify delivery of an entitlement of the public's resource to a small number of historical gillnet license holders.

4. Is adoption of an option by the Commission needed to fulfill the goal of achieving an economically viable fishing industry? No. Three citizens group comprise the harvesters within the state's industry (Tribal commercials, Non-treaty commercials, and recreational). The goal for a commercial sector is met by the tribal commercial fleets on their own. Additionally, while important to the gillnetter, the value of the fisheries delivered under the options for the Columbia gillnet license holders is insignificant compared to the fishing industry of the state.

5. Do the options fairly balance harvest between geographical areas? No. The relocation of gillnets from the lower reaches of the Columbia further upstream is intended to target a natural spawning fisheries utilized by the inland community. Historically, the inland community has not been provided the fishing opportunities granted to the gillnetters and others who fish the lower reaches. The proposals redirects the commercial harvest from lower reach stocks on to the opportunities that are slowly opening for those further inland.

Regarding the economic analysis to be presented to the Commission this weekend, the Advocacy does not believe adoption of one of the options will help assure the future of commercial fishing in the Columbia. The future of commercial fishing is reliant upon the gillnet license holders developing alternative gear and adopting selective fishing practices. While the Department can assisted in a cooperative fashion, WDFW staff can not develop new gears or evolve the fleet. The responsibility to adapt to changing times rests on the shoulders of the gillnetters themselves. While helpful to those "grey-haired" license holders who want to hang on for a couple more profitable years, the same number of boats will likely remain in the water. Fewer fish per boat equates to less profit available for those who would be willing to invest in alternative selective gears. Combined with an appearance that the Commission may not have a true committment to selective fishing, the adaption of the fleet towards alternative selective gears will likely be delayed, if not delivered a near fatal blow.
While recognizing the gillnet license holders wish to defend and maintain their historical income streams, the business model of many commercial gillnetters is often described as a part time en-devour or "a way of life". The limited profits from Columbia gillnetting is likely ancillary to other employment, retirement income, or another commercial use of the boat. Due to the shortness of seasons, few full time employee positions are likely reliant upon a WDFW commercial gillnet season in the Columbia.

While considered significant by the individual gillnetters, the investments required to purchase a boat, nets, and license is well below the norm for a typical small business. As an example, a single dispenser on a gas island at a local convenience store can exceed the investment in a boat and the hoses and nozzles sticking out of one of them can exceed the costs of nets.

As for the economic contribution to the state, compare the low level of license fees and taxes collected from a gillnet license holder with a "mom & pop" moderate size convenience store with 4 pumps and a deli inside. The annual fuel and sales taxes collected by the retailer for the state is approximately $711,120. The tax collection costs to the merchant (credit card processing fees) is $16,101. State licenses run $2,640. Business and Occupation tax charged the merchant comes in at $22,320. Total annual contribution costs out of pocket for the retailer is $41,061. If government staff gets involved to provide support (call that on-board observers), the merchant is billed at a rate of $200-225 per hour. It is important to note that the dealer does not receive a single piece of merchandise from the state. Unlike a commercial gillnet license holder who is supplied free fish, the retailers have to purchase all the products they sell.

We end with the following history lesson on economic reality. At the time of the Boldt Decision, hundreds of small cedar mills produced singles and shakes out of old growth cedar salvage. Often operated along side garages or barns as an ancillary income, the mill operators were reliant upon relatively cheap raw materials. Then, like the commercial gillnetter of today who faces competition from ocean ranching and imports from Chile or elsewhere, asphalt, tin, tile, and other roofing products grew in popularity and undercut the price of cedar products. The number of operations declined. Finally, the old growth were nearly exhausted and it was over for those who were unwilling or unable to invest in upgrading operations to handle second growth logs.

Did the state try to keep clear cutting the remaining publicly owned old growth forests as a means to prop up the "way of life" for the cedar mill operators? Did it offer to buy them out of their obsolete saw mill equipment? Was the public denied access to roofing as a result of the failure of the state to provide subsidies to the cedar shake and shingle producers?

The future of commercial harvest in the Columbia rests solidly on the shoulders of the current license holders. Rather than dis-encourage, the state should encourage those who are willing to adapt and invest for the future. While well intended, the options proposed delay the inevitable and at the same time, create a disincentive for the fleet to economically adapt to changing times.

Respectfully,

Tim Hamilton
Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy

cc: Fish & Wildlife Commission
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#971269 - 01/10/17 09:08 AM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13523
Wow! That is a one very good letter!

I can think of only one thing to add. As part of adaptive management, lower Columbia River non-treaty commercial gillnetting has become an anachronism that has outlived its usefulness to society. Treaty fishing provides far more commercially caught salmon to the market place and will continue to do so. I think we should consider using the Columbia River endorsement fee to annually buy back CR gillnet licenses until all of them are permanently retired.

The CR endorsement was originally proposed to raise money to enhance recreational fishing opportunity by providing additional fishery monitoring. The endorsement raises more than enough money for this, and it becomes necessary to develop projects to spend the money according to its intent. Permanently removing NT commercial gillnets is another way to enhance recreational fishing, so that should be a qualified use of the funds.

Sg

Top
#971540 - 01/14/17 11:45 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#971541 - 01/15/17 03:44 AM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4411
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope

Tailing Doc this is the WDF&W press release.

NEWS RELEASE

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

January 14, 2017
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Commission updates Columbia River salmon policy
VANCOUVER, Wash. – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today voted to implement the next phase of the state's reform policy on Columbia River salmon management, including updates to provisions for fall chinook salmon.

The updated policy builds on a joint strategy by Washington and Oregon to restructure recreational and commercial salmon fisheries on the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam.
Adopted by the commission in 2013, the policy was designed to promote conservation of salmon and steelhead, prioritize recreational salmon fishing in the lower Columbia River, and transition gillnet fisheries into off-channel areas by Dec. 31, 2016. The policy also calls for increasing hatchery releases in these areas, while expanding commercial fishing opportunities through the use of alternative fishing gear.

The policy included a four-year transition period, with full implementation scheduled for 2017, but also allowed for modifications to the plan.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), voted to implement most of the key provisions of the current policy but modified the allocation of fall chinook salmon between the recreational and commercial fisheries.
The modification increases the recreational fishery's share of fall chinook from 70 to 75 percent for the next two years, before increasing to 80 percent in 2019. Originally the policy called for the allocation to increase to 80 percent in 2017. The updated policy also would explicitly allow a mainstem commercial gillnet fishery for upriver bright fall chinook upstream from the confluence of the Lewis River in 2017 and 2018, but requires improved fisheries monitoring.
"While we have made a couple changes to the policy for the next two years, we are committed to full implementation, meeting conservation goals and transitioning gillnets into off-channels areas," said Larry Carpenter, vice-chair of the commission.

The commission approved fully implementing the current policy's planned allocation shift for spring chinook, increasing the recreational fishery's share of the stock from 70 to 80 percent beginning this year. The allocation of summer chinook for the recreational fishery also would increase from 70 to 80 percent this year.
In addition, the commission directed staff to move forward with developing and implementing the use of alternative commercial fishing gear by 2019, and aggressively pursue a buyback program for commercial gillnet licenses.

The updated policy, which will be available in the next week on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/, was approved by a 7 to 2 vote. Also during its two-day meeting (Jan. 13-14) in Vancouver, the commission voted to keep woodland caribou, western pond turtles and sandhill cranes on Washington's list of endangered species.
The commission also adopted updates – mostly housekeeping changes – to the North of Falcon policy, which provides direction to fishery managers in defining annual salmon fishing seasons in Washington's waters. As part of the discussion, the commission received a briefing on open public meetings law and efforts to provide greater transparency during the season-setting process.

Commissioners also approved several land transactions including the purchase of 1,280 acres of Department of Natural Resources land in the Stemilt Basin in Chelan County for $1.95 million. The purchase allows the department to preserve habitat for numerous fish and wildlife species and provide public access for outdoor recreation.
WDFW staff also presented an overview of last year's efforts by the department to stop a wolf pack from preying on livestock in a federal grazing area in northeast Washington. Following a new protocol developed in conjunction with its Wolf Advisory Group, the department removed seven members of the Profanity Peak pack after non-lethal measures failed to stop the attacks on cattle grazing in the Colville National Forest. A new report on WDFW's management action is posted on the department's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/.

In other news, Gov. Jay Inslee has re-appointed Kim Thorburn to the commission and appointed Barbara Baker, of Thurston County, to succeed Conrad Mahnken, of Bainbridge Island. Mahnken, who served on the commission for 11 years, did not seek re-appointment when his term expired at the beginning of this year.

The commission also re-elected Brad Smith chair and Larry Carpenter vice-chair.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
________________________________________
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#971689 - 01/18/17 01:51 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
It was great to be there to hear the strong testimony from lots of folks who are icons of the fishing world in the Columbia Basin. Larry Cassidy, Clancy Holt, and Gary Loomis in particular. And of course, FishDoc.....

Nice pic too. I'm the guy wearing the red baseball hat.........

Top
#971835 - 01/20/17 01:11 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
slabhunter Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3742
Loc: Sheltona Beach
The ODFW Commission meeting is on periscope,

https://www.periscope.tv/ODFW/1lDGLVgqlWbxm?
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist .
Share your outdoor skills.

Top
#971856 - 01/20/17 07:51 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
Well OFWC just gave the WFWC the middle finger with a 4-3 vote for the ODFW rebalance plan MINUS rescinding the YBB.

Un-friggin-believable! lame
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#971859 - 01/21/17 07:21 AM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Happy Birthday Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7428
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Now it's a stare-down. As I understand the Compact, it is no fishing unless the two states agree. Who will blink first?

Top
#971860 - 01/21/17 10:11 AM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
redlodge Offline
Fry

Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 37
Loc: Kirkland
This is going to get ugly. Oregon is trying to shove the gill nets down our throat. I would imagine they will close the river until things can be worked. Changes to the compact have to be approved by both sides. Looks to me that Oregon broke the pact

Top
#971861 - 01/21/17 10:16 AM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Happy Birthday Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7428
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Because it is between the states it may have to also have Federal approval.

Keep it closed. Most of the fish will return to Washington waters and available here.

Top
#971862 - 01/21/17 11:06 AM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: Carcassman]
rojoband Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 264
You're slightly right, but a bit off base carcassman. The Compact is a federal act allowing the States to enter in dual agreement given the river fisheries constitute cross state regulations. Interstate commerc actions are under federal authority via the constituttion, but Congress (back in 1918) didn't want to constantly have to pay for or have a federal agency manage the Col R, so they said "OR & WA, we'll grant you authority to do this if you can agree". Well if they can't, then the official waters of WA/OR are then managed officially by whatever regs they may set ... but it ends being a nightmare ... and yes, it may actually legally then revert to federal authority, as its a violation of the original federal act.

In regards to where the majority of fish are produced...well for spring Chinook, the VAST majority are produced in Idaho. So closing the fishery benefits them the most. Same with steelhead, most of the hatchery production is far upriver in Idaho.

Fall Chinook then yeah, its more Washington. Coho, I think its about 50/50 WA and OR, but not sure.

SO overall, your idea of simply closing the lower river DOES NOT benefit WA fishermen...it benefits ID the most.

Top
#971865 - 01/21/17 03:36 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Happy Birthday Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7428
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
That's fine by me. Idaho was left out of the compact. First rights to harvest should belong to whomever's watershed produced them.

Top
#971869 - 01/21/17 04:33 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
slabhunter Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3742
Loc: Sheltona Beach
So, since the States didn't agree to change the allocation on the mainstem.

Is there no change to the original deal? We are now in the year 2017. Gillnets removed from the mainstem and the 80/20 allocation?
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist .
Share your outdoor skills.

Top
#971870 - 01/21/17 05:37 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
Happy Birthday Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7428
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The State's have to agree on, and then authorize, seasons. I believe that fisheries are closed unless open. On the other hand, if the current permeant reg says, for example, open April 1-3 with no year given and the reg hasn't been rescinded then the fishery will open then.

The devil will be in the details. But, with listed fish in river, the Feds will have to be involved.

Top
#971875 - 01/21/17 07:42 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
The Columbia River Compact dates to 1915, when it was established by Washington and Oregon to resolve the chaos that resulted every year when the states established and tried to enforce their own commercial fishing seasons and regulations. The compact provides that neither state may change its fishing regulations, which are identical, without the consent of the other. Congress approved the Compact in 1918.

...

This is a century-old Congressionally sanctioned law.

With the OR commission's express intent to commercially fish its half of the the river by its own rogue rules, isn't Oregon now in federal violation of the Compact?
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#971876 - 01/21/17 07:43 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=elq

A. Interstate Controversies

In some of the earliest non-Tribal litigation, jurisdiction between Oregon and Washington was an explosive issue. Under the Acts creating them, Oregon and Washington had concurrent jurisdiction over the waters of the Columbia and Snake Rivers where they formed a common border. For years, Oregon and Washington passed conflicting laws regarding fishing seasons and the fishing gear that could be used. Those conflicts led to the decision in Nielsen, which involved an Oregon prosecution of a Washington citizen using gear legal under Washington law, but prohibited by Oregon.

Nielsen held that Oregon could not punish conduct that Washington, within its territorial limits, specifically authorized. Nielsen solidified the controversy, leaving Washington and Oregon with the power to regulate their citizens' conduct on the Columbia River in different manners, in spite of the shared nature of the fish resource. This contentious and convoluted management scheme led finally to the first negotiated fishing manage- ment agreement on the Columbia.

In 1918, in an effort to standardize Columbia River fishery management, Oregon and Washington agreed to form an Interstate Compact for purposes of managing the water over which they had concurrent jurisdiction. The Compact represents the first effort to negotiate some rationality and uniformity into the maze of Columbia River fish management.

Unfortunately, even though the Congressional Compact language speaks of "protecting and preserving fish," the Compact parties have done little more than set seasons and specify gear that may be used.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#971878 - 01/21/17 07:46 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/crc/files/col_r_compact_2008.pdf

scroll to Page 10...

1. Who Has Authority To Implement the Columbia River Compact?

When the Columbia River Compact was adopted in 1915, time, place, and manner regulations for fishing were put in place through enactments by the state legislatures. That was a cumbersome, inflexible system. In 1921, the Washington Legislature created a state fisheries board and authorized it to adopt and amend rules governing seasons, areas, and gear for the taking of food fish. Laws of 1921, ch. 7, § 110; see Vail v. Seaborg, 120 Wash. 126, 207 P. 15 (1922) (upholding 1921 law as constitutional). In 1937, the Washington Legislature conferred on the Director of Fisheries the authority to work with Oregon to change fishing seasons under the Columbia River Compact. 1937 Wash. Laws ch. 123, § 2 (expanded by 1983 Wash. Laws 1st ex. sess. Ch. 46, § 150, codified as amended at Wash. Rev. Code § 77.75.020); see 1935-36 WASH. ATT’Y GEN. OP. 200 (identifying the problem corrected by the 1937 legislation). Today, that authority is exercised through the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, which has generally delegated it to the Director of Fish and Wildlife. Wash. Rev. Code § 77.75.020.

In Oregon, the 1937 Legislature authorized the Oregon Fish Commission, now the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, to work with Washington to change fishing regulations under the Columbia River Compact. 1937 Or. Laws chs. 15, 286 (codified as amended at Or. Rev. Stat. § 507.030). The Oregon Director of Fish and Wildlife has emergency authority to adopt temporary rules, subject to the Commission’s approval. Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.118(6).

In both states, the legislature retains the final say under the Columbia River Compact.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#971879 - 01/21/17 07:47 PM Re: WFWC meets Jan 14 in Vancouver.... [Re: eyeFISH]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
3. Congress

Because the United States Constitution forbids states from entering into compacts without the consent of Congress, Oregon and Washington asked Congress to approve the Columbia River Compact, which it did in 1918.

As adopted by Congress, the Columbia River Compact provides in its entirety as follows:

All laws and regulations now existing [as of 1915], or which may be necessary for regulating, protecting, or preserving fish in the waters of the Columbia River, over which the States of Oregon and Washington have concurrent jurisdiction, or any other waters within either of said States, which would affect said concurrent jurisdiction, shall be made, changed, altered, and amended in whole or in part, only with the mutual consent and approbation of both States.

Act of April 8, 1918, ch. 47, 40 Stat. 515.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
Carcassman, Clipfin, Danny Clyde, Dannyboy, dk1948, Twitch
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
4 registered (steely slammer, wolverine, 2 invisible), 941 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13523
eyeFISH 12767
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63778 Topics
645366 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |