The Nisqually is ripe for the taking. Just as the Skokomish River was "annexed" and claimed as sovereign property, so will the Nisqually go.

We have seen a slow but steady progression to remove recreational sportsmen, and incrementally turn the management and jurisdiction of the rivers over to the tribes in toto. There IS a strategy and it is playing out in plan sight. However, it is happening in small increments, so with each loss, we don't raise objection. We've lost the ability to fish on netting days, we've lost days to closures, we've lost access, and now we've lost an entire run of fish. We are loosing a once "public waterway" and, believe me, it's not EVER going to be given back.

The Nisqually is phase two of the annexation of public waters by Treaty Tribes. Once it is accomplished, it WILL be used, along with the Skokomish, as precedence for future take overs.

Don't worry you say...WDFW won't let that happen. REALLY?
Ask the guys waiting for Point no Point Ramp, ask the Guys who loved fishing the Skokomish. The list goes on.

WE ARE LOSING THE MOUNTAIN, A PEBBLE AT A TIME! WAKE UP!

As long as we can fish the ocean (Any Charter operators making management decisions?) then it is all fine. River fishing is generally a low priority, so long as we get the salt. Since the ROI is highest in the ocean (bigger boats, more gas, travel to and from, food, lodging) it just makes economic sense to fish there. Best for business, and that's all that's important.

We have heard this ROI argument come up multiple times at Advisor meetings in the last 2 NOF's. Not really a return on investment in the classic sense of the fisherman hauling in the largest catches with the least investment of their time/talent/treasure..... but rather the volume of economic activity generated by the agency's investment on hatchery production, monitoring and enforcement of fisheries.

Not sure this is a healthy trend for the resource or the stakeholders, but it seems to come up more and more in the allocation discussions each year.

The fish, at least in the minds of bean counters, are there to generate economic activity. What fishery generates the most economic activity. At one time, when WDF was funded by taxes and not licenses this probably made sense. Now, with the Agency supported so much by license sales, the metric has too be return to the angler/hunter. The metric has changed but the mindset has not.

From the releases, it appeared the tribe was fishing well into the coho season, even though the numbers were supposedly not there. When I talked to the department, I asked if they had any numbers for the Tribe's Coho take for this year and the prior years. I was told I would need to call the tribe and ask them for the numbers. This would lead me to believe the state does not have them. I haven't got around to calling the tribe, but I am sure they would give them to me. RIght?

Baywolf - I agree with you 110%.



Carcassman - I'm going to assume you are stating what you believe to be fact. As someone who has spent 99% of my fishing time on rivers over the last 45 years, I would never trade the fun and thrill of a steelhead /salmon bite on a drifted rig than just popping a downrigger fish on a saltwater troll. But I will admit motor mooching a cut plug ain't bad when you're holding the rod. Just my 2 cents.

That certainly was the salmon management mindset in the 80s and it really hasn't changed. I argued a lot to get some freshwater salmon fisheries; it was all salt-based.

Personally, I prefer rivers and walk/wade. But I am in the minority.

And, the mandate for management is economic value/economic impact to the industry, not the individual./

It is important for folks to recognize the harsh reality that there is a limited resource pie to be divided and who gets what size piece is largely dependent on their willingness/ability to argue for their share. At least the mid-1990s those that might most effectively argue for freshwater opportunities have largely been MIA for important forums such as NOF.

A classic illustration would be the summer Chinook MSF on the Skykomish. That fishery was delayed for two years from lack of support from those that might take part in the fishery. If one is not at the table you will be left with scraps.

Curt

Interesting comment, since the sports fishermen has been forbidden to "be at the table" in the NOF for some time. WDFW has proven by their actions (or better in-actions) that they have abdicated any real representation of the terminal area sport fisher.

The point I'm try to get across is, our sport is under siege. WE ARE LETTING ourselves be run off the water (public water's) by exactly what Curt has eluded to. Lack of outrage and participation! The Commission is supposed to be OUR representatives, yet we have let it morph into a political cease pool that does the Departments bidding. There are cronies in WDFW leadership like Ron Warren, who is abjectly unfit for service. His scheming and conniving has cost the sport fishermen dearly, and yet, I see sportsmen clammer to shake his hand and slap him on the back like he's a freaking celebrity! Too many guys are content to bitch, yet very, very few are willing to dig into the facts and expose the travesties and back room deals that are really hurting our sport.

I guess I'm just old fashioned in my beliefs that wrongs should be addressed and stood up against.

The Tribal members were willing to be jailed and humiliated to gain their rights, and now the pendulum has swung to the other side and instead of outrage, most sportsmen choose to computer bitch...

Baywolf - This paragraph describes exactly how the silver fishery was "managed" (by the tribes) this fall on the Skagit. The river was a virtual desert from Burlington to Lyman for sporties the entire month of October, at least. Sure, a few local guys got a handful of small fish given their years of experience, but that very limited success was the exception. I caught one moving fish in 3 trips and only saw two rollers total in 3 trips. No one else I talked to even saw one roller - but the limit was 4 silvers thanks to the tribes upping the forecasted returns! What a frickin joke!

We've allowed a few in WDFW to set the agenda for us. They've done a terrible job the last decade. They are often wrong, but never in doubt! We continue to see the failures of a recovery direction clearly out of whack. The most frustrating factor to me is that I have heard and continue to hear solutions verbalized and articulated at regional and Commission meetings, but staff continues to trump the public. I have respect for several of the commissioners, especially Carpenter, but some of the others are, at a minimum, confused or just plain stupid. If the department is being run like a business (which it isn't), I would correlate it to Sears: From great, to abjectly failing, and soon to be kaput.

I will now speak sacrilege: It's time to get rid of the Commission, at least in its current form, or go back to a director who reports directly to the governor. As it now stands, we aren't putting any heat on our incumbent governor, are we?

I have hope for Sussewind, but he has a hell of a hill to climb.

I thought the Commission would be more responsive and less political than a Governor's Appointment. Another option would be to elect the director, like DNR, to a six-year term.

LOSING RIGHTS TO SURFACE WATERS IS CORRECT.
The Skok is an example of fresh water.

NOW PAY ATTENTION:

In the saltwater, former Dir. Jim Unsworth wrote to our federal government on Dec. 4, 2015. He said :
"Legally, we dispute the Tribe's claim about fishing interference because that claim implies that the Tribe has exclusive rights to (salt) surface waters in their U &A. WDFW believes the Tribe's off-reservation treaty fishing rights must be exercised in common with all other state citizens. The public has a right to recreate and fish over the state's navigable waters."

This comment was made in reference to a Puget Sound/salt water Area 10, which is NOT on any tribal reservation, and Unsworth argued to replace a launch at a WDFW public boat ramp. Not build a new launch, but a replacement of a single lane ramp, in an area where there were once 12 boat launches.

This topic is not a joke. The above applies to Point No Point, which is NOT on any reservation and 8 miles to the nearest summer netting. The Feds have not responded...yet. Whatever they decide, it will apply to YOUR local salt water access, since tribal U & A waters cover a vast majority of the State's salt water.

When the Feds (the Corps) responds, it will set legal precedent for the whole state. At that point, I believe you can erase "Point No Point" from legal docs, and "fill-in Your Local Boat Launch Here", and your Corps permit will be denied due to the precedent.

The tribes have a perfect hidden setting to achieve a Statewide Precedent: Little old Point No Point that no one cares about or notices. Tell me (really), Why do the tribes care so much about stopping a ONE LANE, shallow water boat ramp with NO DOCK?
.
.
.
.
.
Because after the precedent is set, your saltwater access is gone next!

Frustrated recreators have expressed ourselves verbally to directors, commissions, and (fill in the blank with other, potential, future disinterested government body), loud and clear, and on plenty of occasions. The reason it seems like a giant, collective waste of time is that it is precisely that. If you want to speak to a sometimes sympathetic ear, go to a commission meeting. If you want to propose changing something, go directly to your state representative. If you want your proposal to be seriously considered, do some research into how much money your representative took from commercial and tribal interests in the last election, and bring a few dollars more than that amount with you.

It really is that simple. We whine and bitch even more loudly than the commercials. The reason nobody seems to listen is that we aren't speaking the right language; nor are we speaking to the right people.

There is only one other way we can meaningfully affect the equation: stop buying licenses. The downside to this strategy is, unfortunately, obvious and quite severe....

Either we spend a lot more or we quit spending altogether. Those are our choices, assuming we want results.

Look at it this way: If WDFW was genuinely interested in sticking up for the least common denominator, they'd have plenty of cheap, easy ways to solicit our feedback at their disposal, especially in the modern era, where mass survey campaigns are simple to set up and cheap to conduct. The current framework of scheduling "public hearings" on weekdays, during work hours, ensures that only the retired and those willing to forego pay or vacation leave will attend and put forth proposals. That results in generally poor attendance, enabling the convenient perception that sport fishers simply don't care enough to get involved. It's bull$hit, pure and simple, but it is extremely effective at shielding WDFW and our representatives from any direct citizen accountability, so it's not likely to change unless we force their hand (by ceasing to buy in with our license purchases). Yup, we're over the proverbial barrel as long as we keep on buying in.

Why limit the concern to just fishing? Since the Tribes hunt off-reservation, is that next? It's not just in WA but anywhere Tribes fish, hunt, or whatever off reservation.

It would appear that our State Government in unwilling to take the step of taking the Tribes to Court. It will take others (local governments, citizens) doing so. Might start with taking the State to court for not representing its citizens.

If we continue to buy licenses, we are supporting WDFW's actions. But, economically bankrupting an ethically bankrupt organization will still leave the Tribes with control.

What does WDFW value over all else?

1. FTEs (full time employee equivalents)

2. Hatcheries (look where WDFW spends its money; wildlife is a paltry distant second.)

What does WDFW value least of all?

1. The constituents who pay the taxes and buy the licenses that makes the Department's very existence possible.

Now that WDFW is working its way toward irrelevance - really, who needs them when the tribes have predominant control of the anadromous fisheries? - I think it's the perfect time to lobby the Legislature to zero out, or close to it, the General Fund monies that go to the Department. Let the Department live on license fees. Maybe they'll notice then who pays their bills, including salaries. Just maybe they will focus their attention on the constituents who fund their existence.

If I'm not mistaken, Idaho Fish & Game exists entirely on license fees with no state general fund money. Montana is a mix in that Fish, Wildlife, and Parks are in one agency, but none of my non-resident MT fishing license is used to subsidize commercial fishermen, just sport fishing, and they have lots of nice fishing accesses and boat ramps.

Those rhetorical questions are exactly why the USACE has ducked, dodged and otherwise made a concerted effort to pretend that the permit application has NOT been sitting on their desk for years. Note that former Director Unsworth's letter to the Corps was dated 4 Dec 2015 and yet no action from the Corps other than to solicit additional information from the tribes as to how the ramp's usage would adversely impact tribal fishing rights as alleged.

It is my belief that some of the tribes do have a larger agenda and it is control. As I recall the tribal response to the permit application included a demand for payment of a substantial amount of cash as compensation for potential future adverse impact on their treaty fishing rights. To its credit WDFW took exception to that demand ; a demand which I will characterize as extortion yet here we sit with a great boat launch ($4MM?) without a ramp.

Without going into further detail regarding the tribal objections let me opine that none of the tribes with U&A in the area of the PNP facility have had any difficulty harvesting their 50% of any of the resources covered by Boldt and subsequent court rulings nor will they from the use of that ramp should it come to fruition.

Let me repeat. The struggle over the permit for the PNP ramp is one of control - plain and simple.

[quoteWhat does WDFW value over all else?

1. FTEs (full time employee equivalents)][/quote]


To the heart of why WDFW fails so miserably! Give the man a cigar!

I believes they also have sole (legal) hunting access to the Cedar River watershed.

I would disagree somewhat on WDFW access to GF monies. Their mandate covers all animal resources, not just those consumptively pursued. Somehow, the non-consumptive users need to pay their share of habitat maintenance and restoration. Or, we could change the laws so that WDFW manages ONLY consumptive resources and some other state agency manages the warm and fuzzies.

Absolutely support this! It would definitely send a very loud message across the bow if it took hold and became a movement!

Unfortunately, lobbyist cost money, and the tribes and commercials already employ lobbyists. Sportsmen have "organizations" but they cannot see past their agendas to do anything.

What we need is a "Billy Frank Jr." of Sport Fishing. We need a few of the leaders of the sport fishing community to step up and start organizing. Unfortunately, most are too enamored with name recognition and status to become effective. They love the attention, the first name basis and back slapping and are so engrained in the politics and cronyism that they have become a part of the problem. They turn there eye's when they see the corruption and back room deals rather than risk loosing favor with the very WDFW and Commission leadership that needs to be confronted.