Thanks so much for the detailed summary, Larry. Excellent.



IIRC there's a fair amount of "horse trading" in these negotiations, correct? I think I heard that one of the reasons Columbia river chinook bounced back is because of a deal with BC to lay off them a bit (I think if we laid off fraser sockeye or something)



This seems like an egregious dereliction on the AAG's part. I listened to the last conference call and Grossman was basically exclaiming "GOTCHA" to the Commission. I envisioned him tapping his fingers together and cackling diabolically.

Instead of performing olympic-level legal gymnastics to cut the public out of the process, he *COULD* have been doing the same to make sure the public was INCLUDED. The AG is after all the "people's lawyer".

First Amendment: "...right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I'm sure Grossman would scoff at the assertion what he did was uncontitutional, but I THINK the spirit of of the 1st amendment was pretty clearly violated.



Not sure if it was the same person, but the Bham PSA president testified that a complete sport closure of area 7 (summer/winter fisheries occupying #3 and #4 the stilly impact list) for the 2016/17 season would have saved only 3.4 stilly chinook. I couldn't believe that, but it was verified by WDFW.

Closing one of the most popular, productive, economically valuable, beautiful etc etc marine areas WOULD SAVE ONLY THREE AND A HALF FISH.



Yeah McIsaac is awesome - I am very impressed.



Not terribly surprising, but it's it just adorable that NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce?

And I find it baffling that the fishing economy is NOT a factor for them. At the very least, the seafood market is a pretty big part of the picture is it not?



I LOVE the Fonzie similie In the last conference call Kyle Adicks did say out loud that if the plan had been used as a guideline for 16/17 that area 7 would likely have been totally closed. Can't take that one back Kyle.

Remember the vociferous backlash in 2016 when the Tribes went ahead and fished before an NOF agreement was reached (and recs were off the water)? I think that would pale in comparison to this scenario. Or would it. Sportfisherman haven't been able to galvanize too well around much, so I'm not sure why I think this would be different. We've been taking a slow-motion beatdown for ages. We might just peter out with a whimper.



Push by who? That's upsetting.

Thank you. I would have written it up last night but the brain was numb.

As for using the Plan for 2018 and 2019 that came from Staff during the briefing. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "push" but it was clear to me that the Plan would certainly be the template for NOF for those two years because NOAA would not be able to formalize the Plan in time for 2018 and most likely not for 2019.

Sportfisherman haven't been able to galvanize too well around much, so I'm not sure why I think this would be different. We've been taking a slow-motion beatdown for ages. We might just peter out with a whimper.

True dat!

We have over 5000 sportsmen who have galvanized around the lack of transparency issue, and probably a hell of a lot more who are following the issue. It's not having sportsmen come together and support something that's the problem. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IS MOST WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO DO ALL THE WORK TO FIX THE PROBLEMS!!

Example: How many sport fishermen live in S.W. Washington, say within an hours drive of Ridgefield? How many showed up to speak at the Commission meeting?

How many have actually sent emails? How many have contacted their state representatives?

It's not about "galvanizing" around an issue. It's apathy and laziness. It's an attitude that "somebody ought to do something", AND THEN NEVER BECOMING "THAT SOMEBODY",that has us in the mess we are in.

We sports fishermen have given away our voice and our power by in-action. Just like the Commission will give away it's authority if they do not fire Unsworth.

For every guy that bitches here on the internet, and does NOTHING else, we grow weaker!

For every fishermen who says "Nothing will change". We are assured, nothing will change.

And for every person who bought a license and then leaves all the heavy lifting to everyone else, shame on you! You are part of the problem!

We are at a critical point in our fisheries. We have a petition in front of the Commission asking them to convert the NOF policy into a WAC. Never in a long time have we been this close to having a real voice in our fishery management. There should be a laser focus right now by every single sport fisher on getting the Commission to move forward on the conversion. WE NEED TO HAVE THEM VOTE "YES" TO CONVERT THAT NOF POLICY TO A WAC. THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM EVERY SINGLE LICENSE HOLDER. THEY NEED TO KNOW WE ARE UNITED, STRONG AND WILLING TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING TOGETHER!

The Commission needs to stay, Grays Harbor has a Policy that was reached with agreement of parties concern....lasts until 2023, then ????

I have included a web address......pretty clear in wording !!!


https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3621.html

There were several guys who testified about the status of the Cowlitz and particularly the loss of early return steelhead and its impact on the local economy.

There was also testimony urging the Commission to stay the course with regard to their original policy to remove gillnets from the main stem of the Columbia. That issue is still perking and will be coming up for Commission action. As an issue it certainly did not receive the support I would have expected. As I recall the CCA reps focused their testimony on the PLAN; hope they are able to quickly shift focus and push support for the CR policy.

"We are at a critical point in our fisheries. We have a petition in front of the Commission asking them to convert the NOF policy into a WAC. Never in a long time have we been this close to having a real voice in our fishery management. There should be a laser focus right now by every single sport fisher on getting the Commission to move forward on the conversion. WE NEED TO HAVE THEM VOTE "YES" TO CONVERT THAT NOF POLICY TO A WAC. THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM EVERY SINGLE LICENSE HOLDER. THEY NEED TO KNOW WE ARE UNITED, STRONG AND WILLING TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING TOGETHER!"

Changing the NOF Policy so that is part of the Washington Administrative Code will allow us a pathway to rule making through the Commission. This proposal will be considered for approval on or around Feb. 2nd.

I ask you...in light of recent (or past) events relating to issues long deliberated, put off or just plain ignored by WDFW...why wouldn't this action be of vital importance to everyone of us? We all piss and moan re: WDFW's strategy of procrastination and utter lack of action. WHY NOT MAKE THAT WORN OUT TACTIC UNLAWFUL? Get familiar with, and behind this effort. Let the Commission hear your point of view and worthy rationale...more than just once!

The Twin Hbrs Group wholly endorses this procedure, and the track record of their efforts to initiate stakeholder participation and subsequent change is definitely something to look up to.

This is a major Game Changer--but only if we fiercely pursue and support the effort to make it come about.

Sorry Bay wolf, I wasn't trying to diminish the incredible effort you've put into this (and also all the great work Twin Harbors has done). You have my full support AND participation.

I am just moaning about the historical lack of participation of sportsmen in the process. Too often in the past I've been shocked and disappointed by the apathy of license holders, so perhaps I'm trying to manage my own expectations about the future.

That, added to the general feeling by those who have participated that their engagement hasn't made a damn bit of difference. Heard this from a former sportfishing advisor the other day.

I've always asked, "what would it take to REALLY get people involved?" The numbers for effecting real change do exist (license holders). Perhaps it would take a total closure for that to happen. I would seriously hope that if there were a total closure PLUS the tribes still fish, people would finally speak up.

But lets hope it doesn't get to that point!

Side note...people who "just talk" are way more valuable than we think. Thinking about the issues and participating in discussion IS engagement. Even if they never send a letter to the governor or go to a meeting or a protest, we need people out there thinking about the issues, talking with others.

So what do you think is THE most important:

1. Shake up at WDFW leadership (Fire Unsworth and reassign senior leadership).
2. Convert Policy to WAC
3. Get rid of AAG Grossman


#1 would seem to be a question of when not if. I am all for right now. It would seem neither Unsworth nor his direct reports are actively engaged in a constructive effort to salvage the situation.

#2 is hardest to accomplish as it will involve legislation.

#3 should be easy given that Grossman has not been functioning in a manner consistent with the AG's mission statement (http://www.atg.wa.gov/mission-vision-values) and works for an elected politician. The lack of transparency alone should be enough to catalyze change here. Anyone feel like writing to the AG?

We need to all get behind some concrete goals and start pushing. I nominate any one or all of the above.

One of the problems with simply reassigning staff is that they are still there.

A new Director will work if the Commission makes non-compliance a fireable offense and then follows through.

Reassigning staff will work if the new leadership no only takes direction from the Commission but gets compliance from below.

Otherwise, all that happens is that the Titanic's deck chairs are rearranged again.

All of the above are interesting questions/scenarios. I'm faithful that NO Director--present or future--will again flirt with non-compliance after this dust up. Existing staff should be put through a comprehensive performance review, and the dead wood should be cast aside. AAG Grossman has stepped over the line, and should be the subjected to reassignment...or, better yet--termination.

The future course of WDFW will be determined by actions soon to transpire.

Grossman's performance will be reviewed by AG Fergusen. Need to find out what he thinks of the performance.

Geoduck

Making the policy a WAC is in the powers of the Commission. It doesn't require legislative action.

To clear up regs, a WAC (Washington Administrative Code) is the rules that are made by agencies to enforce RCW (Revised Code of Washington) which are what the Legislature enacts.

RCWs are "Laws"
WACs are "Rules"

....and it is much easier to change a WAC than a statute.

The conversion process is essential. Here's why. First, a policy is advisory. There is no method to sue for violation of a policy. It can be ignored with little ramifications.

With a WAC, there are consequences for violating. And it would allow us to sue if needed.

Here is a link to the steps, if anyone would like to read through them:

Steps to Rule Making

The advantages to a rule, and particularly the process, is the public input period! We then can speak to the Commission directly to include open meetings! They can also address their delegations in a very narrow manner, so we will never see what happened in the Ten year plan. A WAC can be easily changed, so it is flexible enough to evolve as we progress in our fisheries.

But, it's all for nothing IF THE AAG CONVINCES THE COMMISSION TO KILL IT!

So easy even I could do it.

1. What does the commission have to do to fire him? How is this addressed?
2. Anything that doesn’t help Salmon will lead to less Salmon.

The Commission can fire Unsworth through a simple majority vote.

Other's can address the NOAA/Trump question.

I am somewhat surprised, given the Administration's "leanings" regarding race and government over-reach that they haven't jumped in here with both jack-booted feet. Seriously. Their base is being screwed. Maybe it is because WA is too blue that reds here can just flounder around.