Biologists at WDFW who might make a mistake sometimes take natural resources from all of us, then go home and later back to work to a computer or otherwise, with nothing out of their pocket. Fish and Wildlife Officers who might make a mistake are subject to lawsuit, losing their pension, their job, home, bank account and sometimes their liberty in the case of civil rights violations.

There is a difference between a mistake and, for example, making an estimate of runsize that is inaccurate. Computational errors, like popped up in the GH model, should not be tolerated. When the best available model gives poor information, that's a different issue.

Now, if the model says "A" (for example, you will land on the runway at SFO) and real data says "B" (you're putting this bird down in the Bay) and you stick with "A" then you should be called to account.

Short of actually counting, one fish, two fish, management is based on estimates and extrapolations. The acronym is Best Available Data (BAD), which is only as good as the information received (fish tickets, dock interviews, CRC, reported cats and other tags). If you (this is the Royal You) are not accurate in your reporting then don't expect accuracy in management.

An example of a serious mistake by a salmon management biologist was when (name not mentioned here) decided in the early 2000's that a Coho sized gillnet mesh would be suitable for use as a tangle net for the spring gillnet season. Result: 20,000 dead steelhead as bi-catch. Serious, serious "mistake" (more like negligence to me - didn't he understand how gillnet sizes work?) that affected many. He's still in a top manager position on the Columbia. ( By the way we're not doing too well on the Big C, are we?) Just an example of the accountability level difference between professions. The officers in this crab case don't know the level of their personal risk yet. I went through this years ago. Ruins your life, temporarily.

That was a blunder of epic proportions. Any (competent) manager of gill nets knows the size selectivity. Back in the 80s there was a conservation issue with Skagit coho. So, the State and Tribes fished chum with either 6 or 6.5" minimum. Caught lots of chum and almost zero coho. Salmon management ended 11/30 and conservation/managment responsibility went over to WDG and steelhead. Mesh size dropped to 5" (catch those steelies) and the hammered coho.

I can see the crab case getting really ugly, depending on how hard the State wants to fight. Were I a betting man I'd put my money on "roll over".

It appears that the real issue is not with the fisherman, but with the buyers. The tribe prosecuted the fishermen because, while they might skip over the one day, they can not get around the fact that they were involved in multiple cases of poaching. My reading of this whole case is that the fishing was fairly easy to document, but who was buying them wasn't. The state got the warrant and followed the crab to prove who was buying them. Since this is not a tribal entity and the activity was not fishing, then the buyers do not have the ability force it in to tribal court. The tribe, then, found a way to claim that the one day in question was legal. The buyers then walk free. This smells of an organized, concerted effort to keep the state from getting justice, not on the fisherman, but on the buyers. With an active buyer, this activity will likely always continue. Hopefully the buyers' arrogance in chasing the state and the individual agents will back fire. The state might be able to roll over, which is what they likely will do, but unless they indemnify the agents, then this is likely to go to trial. My guess is that when the state settles, the case against the individuals will go away. What should happen is that the agents in question should immediately file a huge counter claim for libel and then start demanding discovery from the buyers and the tribe. That would make it interesting.

I will leave it for Tug to chime in but it was my understanding that one of the foundations of co-management is timely exchange of information. It used to be a requirement of agreements; you must notify the other side of any opening.

So, did Tulalip let WDFW know that these specific people had been authorized an additional day? If not, then WDFW must assume it is closed unless the new rule is that tribal members are free to fish or hunt at any time and place that suits them.

I don't know the details of the incident, but it smells. It's not beyond possibility that the tribe did inform WDFW of an extension and it didn't get to the field. Isn't it unjust that members of a separate sovereign nation contained in the U.S. can sue the state, but the state can't sue the members of that sovereign nation?

I don't want this to sound like an anti Indian rant, because it's not. It's just that in managing our resources it is regularly demonstrated that no one is in charge, and no one is responsible. So, what happens now? The new Director is on trial, figuratively, that's what. Does he throw the officers under the bus in order to keep tribal/state relations good? Or does he back his officers' actions? A good (new) leader will examine all the facts first, then make a move. I hope he does that. Years ago, a similar case evolved, and the Director lost the confidence of his officers. The cops went to Legislature, etc., and it caused a terrible workforce issue that lasted for years.

Before Co-Managment, conservation was the responsibility of the state (WDF/WDG). This was from Boldt. This was given away in establishing Co-Managment where the responsibility for conservation was shared; you conserve yours and we'll conserve ours.

I agree with a friend from the old IPSFC that what is required in fish (resource) management is a Benign Dictator. One person who is responsible for, and whose presence in the job depends on, the achievement of escapement goals and catch sharing.

Heck, in the mid-80s the Director started losing technical staff support and I never it saw any improvement.

"J F C... can you imagine how much the blood-sucking attorneys will bill out in a year's time?[/quote]

This shite is happening and you're worried about the lawyers?!?!?!?!

J F C back `atcha Francis...

C-Man,

I agree with the benign dictator.

I think the term is "Benevolent Dictator." Benign would be to ignore and not act. Sorry for nit picking.

Salmo's right. My memory must be going...

We do need one person, or (Board, Commission) directly responsible and whose continuation in the job is dependent on doing it well.

Salmo,

I woke up this morning thinking that the word should have been "benevolent". Felt a little bit embarrassed. Besides that, I'm loosing some of my spelling ability as I get older. ( Some people think I'm Senile.)

Know what else? Some people think I'm senile. I must be senile getting my steelhead gear together for next month. Nothing like a seventy one year old man rowing a boat down the river.

You can bet your as$ the Northwest Indian Fisheris Commission is pushing hard to be “the one”.

You can also bank on them reducing salmon take to tribal right and cerimonial under conservation as fast as you can say “gill net”!

When did the corruption start? Will it ever end?
I say its when the Democrats got in bed with the tribes. Casino money, 30+ years of one party rule.

When the Tribes and the WDFW rang the alarm bells and shut down the Coho season for sportsmen and then had a full on Coho commercial season for the tribes and they gave the appearance that we all would be shut down but only come to find out they knew the tribes planned on having a full commercial season.

They did the same thing in Elliot bay.

or how about Christine.

OLYMPIA -- Gov. Chris Gregoire is benefiting from more than $650,000 in campaign contributions from Indian tribes that hit the jackpot in 2005 when she killed a gambling compact potentially worth more than $140 million a year to the state.

Unlike 22 other states that collect millions from revenue sharing agreements for tribal gambling, Washington gets no money from tribal casinos under the compact that Gregoire renegotiated with the Spokane Tribe.

Gregoire backed away from the 2005 agreement that included revenue sharing in an attempt to keep gambling from expanding too quickly and after listening to concerns from a wide range of groups, including other tribes, said her spokesman, Pearse Edwards.

I am sure Inslee is up to his eyeballs in corruption he is the sleaziest Gov. to date.

Bay Wolf, it doesn't matter who is in charge so lang as their remaining in charge is tied to performance of meeting escapement goals and then legally-mandated sharing. If the NWIFC can do that, fine. But whoever is in charge has to have serious consequences for failure.

“Serious consequences “, you mean like for major poaching charges? We live in a dual nation state. One nation has to obey the laws, one does not. One has to play by the rules, one does not. One gets to dictate to the other, and the other has little to no voice.

Serious as in loss of ability to manage. You are fired and replaced.

The fact that State shows little or no desire to challenge the Tribes is the result of decisions made by State leadership, above WDFW's pay grade.

The State is, I believe, afraid of what might happen if the Tribes aggressively asserted Habitat Issues un Boldt II (see Culvert Decision). The whole economy of the state would be at risk. Giving away fish and wildlife is (to them) a small price to pay to continue development, business as usual, and so on.

The phrase is normally benevolent but Salmo was wrong to correct you as what you said has the same meaning. Benign doesn't mean "do nothing" Salmo is confusing the word Benign with the word neglect.

Sorry but the next time you'd like to nit pick someone please first stop and consider that you yourself might be the one who is wrong. The term is generally benevolent dictator but benign also works here.

Unlike what you said, benign does not mean to ignore and not act. Benign is kind; gentle; mild and not harmful. Not acting is neglect, you are confusing the phrase "benign neglect." It's bad enough that we had to put up with you as an arrogant incompetent bumbling bureaucrat and now that you retired we still have to put up with you as an arrogant incompetent bumbling grammar nazi.

So please consider that you have no business or expertise in correcting someone else's writing just like you had no business or expertise when you were mismanaging our fisheries. You are just a worthless parasite and a leech who has made his living off other people's taxes. Just kill yourself now if you even have the slightest shred of honor.