I went to the Mill Creek meeting for discussion of the latest draft of the State Steelhead Management Plan(SSMP) and also the draft Environmental Impact Study(EIS). There was 9 people from the public in attendance. Curt Kramer (Smalma) and a gentleman from the steelhead committee of a large flyfishing club and 7 members of the Wild Steelhead Coalition.This meeting was for the public to provide imput and direction for the document that will guide the wellbeing of steelhead for the next 20 years.
Where in the hell are all the whiners and complainers when an impact can be made to the most important decisions that will affect steelhead for probably the rest of my lifetime?

Good Morning, Jerry.

I cannot, nor will I even try, to speak for everyone, but for me the problem lies with the constant bombardment by one entity or another to attend meetings and "listen".

Possibly people get much more out of an OCCASIONAL "Do you think this is a problem and, if so, what ideas do YOU have in solving it?" as opposed to "We are the experts, here's another crisis, and this is what we're going to do." It may be that people also like to see evidence that their inputs were listened to acted upon. OR maybe they're just lazy. OR maybe they just want to have a real life and not spend it on their butts in meetings.

I've lost the faith, brother, that one can dig out the raw truth and speak it load and clear. I thank this State's government from the top to the bottom for that.

I say all this with full appreciation and thanks for those who continue to battle. Me, I'm getting too damn old for this crap.

The WSC was there, has been there through the process of WDFW writing the SSMP and has along the way pointed out changes and shortfalls in the scientific and incomplete scientific thinking that seems to inhabit the upper echelon of the WDFW talking heads. The WSC and Curt Kramer have pointed out many flaws in the plan and have instigated some changes. The plan is still way to weak to protect wild steelhead. I too am tired of the fight.

What she said!

They were all out fishing,instead of rallying.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

I make every meeting in my area.

Ditto what Aunty and Eric have said!! While I support WSC and all their efforts, it's damn frustrating to have both significant attendance and the best scientific evidence on your side and still be IGNORED!

What we need is Political Clout, and it sounds like CCA is the biggest player in this arena. I'll still stay a WSC member but the multi-state presence, 90,001 (I just joined) membership, existing political lobby, and impressive track record make this the only thing PNW sportsfhishers have currently available that can play at the same table with the commercial fishing agencies and tribes.

Like Jerry (who's probably attended far more WDFW meetings than I) I'm tired - tired of feeling like my time, priorities, and concerns aren't valued by those making the decisions.

If that's the case - that my attending those WDFW meetings was just a feel-good waste of my time to make it appear that they (WDFW) was actually listening to the sportsfishing public or to show how many members of an advocacy group would show up to participate in their Dog and Pony show, then I'll find a group to ally my $s and time with that ~IS~ listened to.

Just my .02,

Brian

Again, I thank you that take the time to represent our interests. It would help for some of us to have some advance notice of these kinds of meetings. I am not on the right Email lists, and I'm sure others are in the same boat. But I probably was out fishing

Dolphin

We need alot of Gary Loomis's in the government and judicial system!

We fought the WSC battle and won in 1985.. We never looked back. Its really amazing.. those of you that put harvest before opertunity " Marsha" drag the whole thing in the mud over there

" If we can't kill them, then lets not even fish for them"... Its kicking your asses guys and girls.. it really is.

Yea..." If you can't kill them, then don't fish " You have said it over and over.. and over and over

Nothing against you.. just that train of thought.

I know.. we been down this road before. I view fishing as a sport. The PETA folks hate it and .. well, I ain't gonna stop. I'll let em all go, and they will do just fine. Stuff em in a cooler.. not so much.

Your a great lady. Wish I could sway you over to our side. We kinda need you.

Theres more people than fish these days. just shut down the rivers I guess ??? That the answer ??

guess we might as well just start auctioning off fishing rights to sections of river or something.

at this rate, steelhead and likely salmon won't be around 100 years from now, but even with sport harvest, the last one won't be killed by a sport fisherman...

Good thing we don't have too... smarter heads will prevail

It's a slippery ass bar of soap, I'm tellin' ya.

F*#king Sol...........ROFLMAO You in da wrong business, dude!
(Another coffee-spewing moment brought to you by the Solster.)

For once I agree with AM.

Back in my activist/eco-terrorist day, I used to show up for meetings and do the whole "involved" thing. The only thing thaat ever happened at these meetings was a patronizing "Thank You for your concern, but it's already a matter in which we've conducted a feasibility study."
The canned government response to anything. They always go right on ahead with what they planned all along.
I understand how frustrating it is, but unless you are an appointed or elected official, your presence at some meeting will mean dick.

Jerry,

I hear ya! I attended the meeting in Sequim and there was about 15-20 people in attendence.

All,

The meeting objective is pretty simple. Have a meeting, present the SSMP to the public, answer any questions, gather imput and encourage written comments by the end of the month. Anyone who cares about the future of steelhead fishing should support their desired alternative. Pretty simple really.

One problem associated with these meetings (often true with this BB) is it allows the general public to vent off to WDFW on topics that aren't related to the topic at hand.

My opinion? I would like to see Alternative 1 adopted but doubt it will since there won't be enough budget to fund all the changes. However Alternative 2 (preferred) is still better than 3 and 4. An Alternative will be selected for adoption. Which one will you support? Or will you just ignore the issue altogether? The other comments and opinions on this thread doesn't really address the issue now does it?

DaveD -
I see that the deadlines for comments has been extended to Sept. 10th.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=aug1707a

I'm somewhat surprised your preferred option is the one that would provide for little or no fishing in most cased now or in the future. It was clear from the discussions at the Mill Creek meeting Thurs. that the author of the DEIS was considering carrying capacity that would be seen under current survival conditions. As result under option #1 we would see little increases in populations abundances for those populations in most trouble (the populations in the 5 listed DPS).

You asked which option I would support? AS currently written it is hard to support any of the options. However since my concern is see increased escapements and providing a diverse fishing opportunities if forced to select one it would have to been #3; the status quo. It is the only option the provides any hope that management would see increased run sizes and escapements while providing at least some fishing.

AuntyM.

A couple of times now you have stateed that sportfishers do not have any influences on the outcome and asked it anyone could cite an example where members of the public was succesful in influencing the outcome of anything. I wonder if the folks at WSC would agree with you. It seems to me that since they became active in attending meeting and working the process they have been reasonably successful in infuencing outcomes for issues they care about. yes they have not achieved all they wanted but those members that I talked with seem to think they have influenced the process so that decisions are more in line with their priorities.

Anyone; I'm wrong in that assessment?

While it is not necessary to attend these meetings to be able to provide input on this or other issues it has been my experience that attending such meetings can be of value to many anglers. By the way; if it is such a waste of time to involve oneself in these processes why did you say you will provide written comments? Don't feel that is a waste of time as well?

For those anglers lacking your vast experience and knowledging attending such meetings can provided to further ones education on what these process are and how to more effectively provide input into the process. In addition through the comments, explainations, and Q & As it is not uncommon for some of the complicate fishing managment issues, concepts, etc to be clarified.

At such meetings it is nearly always the case that local WDFW staff are at them. Those folks can be great contacts for the average angler. Not only does it put a face on the agency they are resources for our questions.

Personally I have founda major benefit in attending those meetings is that I get a chance to see what other folks are thinking, how agency staff respond other folks and my comments. Those insights provide me with valuable information on what are key issues and how best to craft my own comments to be most effective in getting to the crux of the matter. One of the beautiies of the EIS process the agency has to respond in at least some fashion to the comments they recieve.

Yes attending those meeting can be extremely frustrating and is not likely to achieve immediate or complete success in advocating their position the one thing I know for sure is that not being involved is a sure way to have not influecne.

Tight lines
Curt