Columbia River Action Alert

*Formatting may be a bit screwy due to being copied over...sorry if it is!*

Dear Friends of Steelhead where ever you may be:


Many of you are already aware that the States of Washington and Oregon have applied to NOAA Fisheries to increase the allowable impacts on ESA listed steelhead in the Columbia by the commercial fleet. The request is to raise from 2% to 6% the mortality cap on wild winter steelhead to give the commercial fleet the ability to have a higher by-catch of wild steelhead while they are netting Spring Chinook Salmon out of the mainstem.

Members of the sportfishing and conservation community are outraged. After all, there have been decades of conservation efforts and sacrifices made the sportfishing community that is paying off in healthier steelhead stocks. From leading the charge for selective fisheries, changing hatchery practices, habitat and hydro protections, sport fishers have fought for protective measures for wild steelhead. We did not do so to transfer the biological benefits of our efforts over to the commercial fleet to die in tangle nets. It's not fair.

Indeed, many of the stocks are still too fragile to be raising impacts. For example, WDF&W's own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead. Furthermore, ocean conditions right now are extremely beneficial to wild steelhead. This is the time to invest the recent increase of wild ESA steelhead in recovery, not in increased mortalities!

Small communities throughout Washington and Oregon are reaping the benefits of steelhead fisheries that are selectively targeted on hatchery winter steelhead. Literally tens of thousands of angler trips are spent in pursuit of winter steelhead in the lower Columbia. ODF&W has estimated that an angler trip in the lower Columbia is valued at $138.00 per day. Sportfishing for winter steelhead occurs during an important window to help sustain year-round family wage jobs. Looking at the last several years of data, there are almost yearly examples where the commercial fleet over fished their preseason quota. This would shut down sport fisheries in the mainstem and in the tributaries, where smaller businesses depend upon winter steelhead.

You must do three things right now!
1) Write (via fax or mail) the Commission Chairs today!
2) Send the same letter to the Governor's office today
3) Pass this e-mail on to others on your list.
Remember to stay professional and polite, but be clear that this is not acceptable. You are welcome to call any of us with questions, or if you need help. We at NSIA would appreciate a copy of your letter sent to: nsia.aaron@comcast.net

Norm Ritchie, President, Association of Northwest Steelheaders
Todd Ripley, Vice President of Political and Legal Affairs, Wild Steelhead Coalition c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com 425-281-0571
Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
866.315. NSIA


***Action Alert—Protect Wild Winter Steelhead****

To: Washington and Oregon Anglers
From: Norm Ritchie, NW Steelheaders
Todd Ripley, Wild Steelhead Coalition
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Subject: Proposal To Triple Allowable Steelhead Kill In Gill-Net Fishery

First, A quick quiz:

Question: How do fishery managers make Gill-Nets more Effective?

Answer: Lower the standards.

ODFW and WDFW staffers have written a request to NOAA Fisheries asking for an increase in the allowable kill of threatened and endangered wild winter steelhead by the Columbia River Gill-Net fleet. The latest is new request by ODFW and WDFW to triple the allowed steelhead kill from 2% of the run to 6%!

This request was originally made in 2004, but NOAA Fisheries asked for more information and did not act on that original request. Perhaps most incredible is the increased steelhead kill was not allowed or needed in the 2004 gill-net fishery. Yet the fishery managers persist in their efforts to increased steelhead kill in the gill-net fishery.

Please write the Governor’s office and Fish & Wildlife Commissions and express your opposition to increase the kill on wild winter steelhead in the Columbia River.

Write: Governor’s Office

Jim Myron, Natural Resource Policy Advisor Bob Nichols,
Oregon Governor’s Office Washington Governor’s Office
900 Court Street 302 14th Ave. SW
Salem, OR 97301 Olympia, WA 98054
f/ 503-378-3225 f/360 586 8380
jim.myron@state.or.us Bob.Nichols@ofm.wa.gov,

Write the Fish & Wildlife Commissions, ask for copies sent to all commissioners

Marla Rae, Chair Will Roehl, Chair
Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
3406 Cherry Avenue, NE 600 Capitol Blvd.
Salem, OR 97303 Olympia WA 98501-1091
f/503 947 6041 f/c/o Susan Yeager 360 902 2267



“Tell ‘em no more steelhead kill in the Columbia!”

When will the madness stop?

Makes it very hard to trust that WDFW is doing anything about genuine restoration efforts for endangered and threatened salmon/steelhead runs. What exactly do these "stewards" of our fish resources actually get paid to do?

Hey, Moderators...

Any chance of getting a "sticky" attached to this one?

Thanks!

Todd

Here is my letter to them. PLEASE take the time, write & call them

Mr. Nichols & Mr Myron.

My name is John Rogers, I currently live in Washington and grew up on the Oregon coast in Lincoln City. I am a small business owner, avid fisherman, and father of (2) great daughters that cherish our family steelheading trips. In fact for the last several years my most cherished Christmas present has been a family steelheading trip on Christmas eve.

I can not express to you in words how upset and frustrated that our DFW's, both Oregon and Washington, have requested to allow an increase in the steelhead kill from 2% of the run to 6%!. I don’t believe that a commercial fishery is in the best interests of either state based upon the economic impacts of the commercial versus sports fishing and the revenue that is generated from each industry from this fishery, that is matter of my opinion. I can not see what benefit would come from allowing an increase in the mortality rate on a ESA listed fishery.

There are other methods of commercial fishing that would reduce the mortality rate of the steelhead in the commercial industry, yet they are not implemented or even considered, and now they want to increase it. Why are we not working on helping them decrease the % of mortality is beyond me. I understand, not agree, with the states need to BALANCE the fishery between the commercial and sports fishing community. I don’t see how with increase rules and restrictions on the sports fishing industry, most if not all of which I agree with, like barb less hooks, not removing the fish from the water, limited seasons and so on. For the DFW to ask for an INCREASING the commercial mortality % is not working towards a balance, reducing the % is.

Both Oregon and Washington's DWF own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead.

I would like you to consider this in making your decision and so NO to the increase and see if we can help them reduce the percentage of mortality rates with fishing methods that are currently available today.


Sincerely

John Rogers
J.R.

Thanks, John!

This pure crap. Why would they want to increase the kill of wild , endangered fish? Oh yeah, $$$. It's always $$$ in one form or another. We need to speak up now. My letter will go in the mail tonight and I will be reporting on this in my column.

Here is my letter. Come on guys, sing in and let us know you sent your too.


December 16, 2004

Please provide this letter to all commission members

Will Roehl, Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Blvd.
Olympia WA 98501-1091
f/c/o Susan Yeager 360 902 2267

Mr. Roehl:

Both as an outdoor journalist and as a sportsman I am deeply disturbed by the Commissions attempts to triple allowable mortality rates on endangered winter steelhead runs.

I believe your primary concern should be rebuilding wild salmon and steelhead stocks. This proposed action, which will be to the detriment of tens of thousands of current sport fishermen and untold millions of future Washington residents, is apparently being done to benefit the handful of commercial netters who profit at the expense of all other citizens.

I firmly believe the stocks to be impacted are much too fragile withstand such an onslaught. Your own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead. In this time of extraordinarily favorable, ocean conditions we need to be doing all we can to rebuild these runs not to view this short-term phenomena as an opportunity to increased mortalities!

I beg you to listen to the will of the people and to your conscience and do the right thing. Withdraw this ill-conceived plan immediately. Can you sleep at night knowing that you put the final nail in the coffin of even one river’s wild steelhead? There is no cure for extinction!

Please know that I will be reporting on the commission’s actions regarding this mater in several region and national magazines. I am sure you will not mind the publicity if you know you are doing the right thing!


Dave Vedder
NW Regional Editor Salt Water Sportsman magazine

AM: Good point. But I still want to let the comission know this is a damn bad idea!

Remember that this proposal was hatched by the outlaws at Division 5 WDFW who are notorious for ignoring the health or fish runs in the Columbia in favor of maximum yield for their commercial fishing cronies. We saw this proposal many months ago and it stunk then just as it does now.

Maybe the WDFW commission will break their long standing precedent and actually listen to our side.

It is my understanding that WDF&W sent their request to NOAA about a month ago. Therefore, it seems that it is out of the hands of our commission, or the governor, for that matter. NOAA is supposed to provide for public comment prior to rendering a decision, but I cannot find out when they plan to do so.
Given that the net season starts in about 60 days (which is seconds in government- time) the public annuncement has to be published soon. The net fishery in 2002 took 21,000 steelhead at the 2% level, imagine what will happen at 6%.

Even if NOAA should agree to the request and while the time line may be short, the Commission - if they so choose, can always enact emergency closures or change the WAC to restrict harvest methods. In general, the states can be more restrictive than federal rules but not more permissive.

It wouldn't hurt to send a copy of your letter to your local newspaper and the Chamber of Commerces, especially along the River. Might be interesting if some of the alleged
investigative TV folks decide to take a look at the issue, too.

If NOAA-F were to sign off on the proposal, all it would do is authorize the states to conduct the fisheries...the Commissions (ODFW and WDFW) would still have to decide whether or not to allow the commercials to have a season, or have one with the same impacts, or have one with more...they could authorize anything up to the limit set by NOAA-F, but don't have to.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

Can you provide us with some e-mail addresses for the commsioners here in WA?

Thanks

Contact the Commission:

Mail: 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone: 360-902-2267
FAX: 360-902-2448
E-mail: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Susan Yeager, the Commission Secretary, will generally forward any mail that goes to the above mail or e-mail address to all of the individual Commission members, but it can't hurt to ask her to do so, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

I have a copy of the Cindy's proposal which is many pages long and well prepared. I got it months ago but can't remember where I got it. Did you get one back then and where did it come from? It actually is quite professionally prepared and looks like it probably cost WDFW region 5 a bundle to assemble. If I wasn't a sports fisherman the proposal could look sensible.

The previous reference to the 21,000 steelhead killed in a previous Springer netfest was actually what prompted this new kill request. It was not that the gill netters and tangle netters stayed withing the 2% ESA rule and caught that many steelhead by accident (hahaha). They had a short net season and caught those steelhead pushing them way over the allowable bycatch....Oh Well!!! They would say. But this caused a huge uproar and really curtailed the next opportunity to net. So now they want to go back to what they did before when they caught so many steelhead in the process of accessing the healthy run of Springers. Once everybody saw that the only way the nets could catch more Springers was to kill an unacceptable level of ESA fish they had no choice but to ask for an exemption from the ESA rules which are based on science and not on giving the gill netters a bigger bounty at any cost.

I suspect alot of user groups on the Columbia would be licking their chops at the thought of tripling the ESA mortality number. Less of a problem for those who could care less about the survival of the wild fish.

Another way to look at this proposal would be to look at a scenario in Puget Sound or the ocean if the ESA limitations were eased and the kill of ESA fish was tripled to 6%. The seasons could be extended and expanded. The quotas could go way up. So maybe we could approach the commission that way. If you approve this ESA exemption for the commercials you should approve the same thing for the sports fishers and if you would not do that, why? Too many fish would be killed? Oh I see....So how many ESA wild fish killed is acceptable? Only the ones on the Columbia caught during the Springer net fishery? OK...I see , then it is a biased decision favoring a very small user group to the detrement of the other user groups.. Ah Ha,,,I see.

Dave -
I can understand your outrage at allowing impacts on ESA wild steelhead however is that concern just limited commerically caught winter wild steelhead?
You stated: "Why would they want to increase the kill of wild , endangered fish..."

I don't recall a similar resposne when the Methow was open to hatchery only season this fall - this clearly did result in a increased kill of wild, endangered fish. It would seem that your concern is only when those impacts are given to a non-sport fishery.

Don't get me wrong I not a fan of gill net fisheries and I certainly believe that the maximum economic benefit from those fisheries would be in a recreational fishery. It just appears that this "playing of the ESA card" in this allocation debate is another example of using ESA listing to lever benefits other than that for the resource and is a example of the abuse of that law. If one choose to strive for maximum ESA protection the creditable approach is to do so evenly across the board.

I think that the approach put forth in Todd's original posting frames the issue correctly as one of allocation.

Dave - I did not mean to single you out and I understand your reaction but I feel strongly such resposnes lead to a dangerous game in ESA and fisheries management.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you tight lines.
S malma

Smalma:

Your point is a good one and I can see why you would raise it. However, I believe my concern would be nearly as high if the same proposal were made in order to dramatically increase the sport season.

Like you, I am no fan of the nets. I believe we need to get rid of them. But I recognize that we sports fishermen kill endangered fish when we engage in C&R fisheries. How many we kill is, of course, a matter for discussion.

My thought is that we need to always look to a balance n between economic opportunity, recreational opportunity and conservation. If you follow my writing I'm sure you know that I think we all too often err on the side of the people not the fish. I have often been criticized by sports anglers for my willingness to close fisheries to protect endangered fish.

I believe that in this case the netters are doing a lot of damage, to the benefit of relatively few people. While the sporties are doing considerably less damage while benefiting many people.

I do not pretend to know what level of incidental kill is acceptable. But I am willing to go with the two percent originally used. Instinctively, it seems a reasonable approach. I absolutely would NOT support a tripling of mortality in order to extend the sports season and I would be willing curtail the sports season if that was what was necessary to protect the steelhead.

I always appreciate your posts. You make us
think, and that's a good thing.

Here is a bit more food for thought. Will the steelhead be able to rebuild if we stay at the two percent level? Would they rebuild, given the other problems they face, even if we entirely close all sport and commercial seasons on the Columbia River springer run?

Todd: I've sent my email and the following letter will go in the mail today.


Will Roehl, Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Blvd.
Olympia WA 98501-1091
f/c/o Susan Yeager 360 902 2267

Mr. Roehl:

It is with little motivation that I can even write this letter, because the gap between what I would consider to be sound management on behalf of the WFWC and the state of Washington’s most fragile runs of salmon and steelhead continues to widen---despite conservationist’s efforts to promote positive change. This dynamic has no doubt served to instill an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness in me. Nevertheless, I will submit the following:

The current proposal to raise the mortality cap on wild winter steelhead from 2% to 6% on the lower Columbia River is yet another gleaming example of poor management. We are at a time when the lower Columbia’s native steelhead runs are most in need of protection and taxing them further with this plan outrageous. As a lifelong resident who has sport fished Washington for twenty-five years and watched first hand, the once great runs of these fish decline to the pittance they are today, I urge you to drop this proposal. Please.

Sol

Smalma does have a good point, and I am no fan of the Methow fishery. If there are too many hatchery fish, we should make less, not subject the wild ENDANGERED steehead to another risk factor of a fishery.

However, I'm not sure the two situations are exactly parallel. The commercials have a fishery for hatchery spring chinook in the lower Columbia. They were given a dispensation for a 2% impact on listed steelhead in order to prosecute the fishery. We can argue about whether that is appropriate, but let's take it as a given for now. It has been clearly demonstrated that they can't prosecute the fishery in the current manner and stay within the 2% limit. Their proposed solution is not to modify how they are fishing, or face the fact that the spring chinook fishery may not be sustainable without unacceptable impacts to listed fish. Their solution is simply to ask for more accomodation.

Smalma may be able to correct me on this (and if he can I'm sure he will), but I'm not sure anybody has demonstrated that the Methow fishery has exceeded any mortality thresholds on wild steelhead that were set when the fishery was approved, or that anyone has then requested that the standard be revised so the fishery could continue.

People aren't saying the spring chinook fishery should be stopped because it impacts wild steelhead. They're saying the fishery should be held to its 2% impact threshold for listed steelhead, an impact threshold that WDFW/ODFW proposed, by the by.

Actually, I read the proposal as nothing but smoke and mirrors. I don't see how the managers can credibly claim that they'll be able to hold impacts below even 6% and still fully prosecute the fishery. They haven't been able to do it so far, and they collect and analyze the monitoring data so sloppily that their margin of error is likely larger than the difference between 2% and 6%.

The worst part of the whole thing is that this is all part of a scheme to certify their cockamamy tangle-nets and recovery-boxes as a bona-fide "selective fishery" technique. It simply doesn't work like they wish it did or claim it does. But if they can get it certified, we'll have a lot more problems than a 6% impact on LCR steelhead.

Aunty: you are right; their is some traction to be gained here at NOAA. They can be pressured not to approve the proposal, and people are working at that end. But Todd is right to that there is still the chance to get one or both commissions to rescind the proposal or simply not act on it. The knuckleheads at the depts are probably a lost cause.

Todd: Give me a call.

Ramon VB
Washington Trout

Smalma,

While I appreciate your posts and your insights on most every topic you choose to participate in, this one is not one of them.

Without directly addressing your last post head on, I'll do it via questions:

1. What is the stock status of the Methow River fish compared to the weakest stocks of the LCR listed fish?

2. Compare/contrast the expected encounter and mortality rates of a Methow River sport fishery and a LCR gillnet fishery (encounters and mortality rates on listed fish).

3. What is the allowable ESA impact on the listed fish in each fishery, and how are each fisheries doing relative to that impact?

4. What would happen to a Methow River sport fishery if it either:
a. Encountered many more times the amount of listed fish as was previously expected, and
b. had a mortality rate as high as the LCR gillnet fishery?

5. Related to number 4, in order of likelihood, which actions would managers take if the Methow River fishery enounted, say, 700% of the expected encounter rate, and had a nearly 50% mortality rate?
a. nothing and allow it to go on
b. close the fishery
c. search for some sort of fishery that would dramatically lower either the encounter rate or mortality rate
d. ask NOAA to triple the allowable impacts so that the fishery could go on as is.

Before you put in your answers, I'll give them a general shot without the benefit of having the numbers in front of me.

Both runs of fish are listed. The Methow fish are doing fairly well, existing above replacement level consistently. The Methow River fishery is being prosecuted over a sinble run of fish.

The LCR net fishery is being prosecuted over dozens of individual runs of fish, some of which are in dire straits.

The Toutle River stock, among others, in the LCR are barely at replacement level, and any increase in impacts is likely to result in their extinction (per WDFW and ODFW biologists).

The encounter rate for the Methow is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/100 or 1/1000 of that of the LCR gillnet fishery.

The mortality rate for fish encountered on the Methow is probably around 2% (barbless single hooks, no bait, cold water)...the mortality rate for the "gillnet and release" fish is, what?, around 50%?

If the Methow fishery could somehow magnify its impacts a hundredfold, or a thousandfold, it would be closed. Period.

The actions that regulators would take, in order of likelihood, would be as follows:

1. Close it (100% chance)
2. Modify it (0% chance)
3. Seek to change allowable impacts, lower the bar as it were, to make the fishery all of a sudden "successful" (0% chance)
4. Do nothing (0% chance)

So, we have a sport fishery that has a measurable, but extremely low, encounter and mortality rate, that would be closed at the drop of a hat if there was any hint of overfishing...this on a run that is existing well over replacement level.

Next, we have a "gillnet and release" fishery that has an encounter rate that is astronomical...nearly 70% of the catch is non-target, ESA listed fish, and the mortality rate is through the roof.

Components of the LCR ESU are existing right around replacement level (a bit above, at, or a bit below), and both states' bios have stated that some of those components will go extinct if the impacts are increased.

The mangers' response when faced with this scenario?

They ask to raise the allowable impacts 300% so that they can legally kill many more ESA listed steelhead and spring chinook while harvesting hatchery chinook.

This argument, while compelling enough as it is, doesn't even bring in the economics of the situation, which is so astronomically in favor of NOT having that net fishery at all, much less with the triple impacts.

Attempting to characterize outrage at this situation as being hypocritical is not only trying to draw comparisons between apples and oranges, it's drawing comparisons between grains of dust and the plantet Jupiter.

Am I that far off base here?

Fish on...

Todd

How do the fisheries people know how many steelhead are killed in gillnets each year? Do they check the commercial netters on each trip out to pull in there catch? How can you selectively change the percentage from 2 percent to 6 percent mortality? It seems like the only way to kill more steelhead would be to leave the nets in longer. Are they going to allow for a longer commercial season?

Luke,

There are various ways to make use of the increased impacts...

The season length could be increased, soak times could be increased, and geographical areas open to netting could be increased...likely it would be a combination of two or three of the above, if the increase is granted by NOAA-F and the State Commissions allow it to go forward.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -

Status of the Methow wild steelhead - ESA listed as endangered - that is likely to go extinct.

Status of the lower Columbia River wild steelhead - ESA listed as threatened - that is likley to become endangered.

Just to check my facts I quickly referred to WSC's draft steelhead white on steelhead status and the authors confirmed my recollection of the status of the two populations. So in short the status of the Methow fish is in worst shape than the LCR populations.

As I recall the sport fishery on the Methow was a selective fishery targeting the hatchery fish returning to the river and it was to last until the number of wild fish encounters times a hooking mortality yielded an impact on the wild population of 1.8% (I may have a detail or two wrong as I don't following things on that side of the state too closely).

The commerical impact on the lower Columbia Fishery was to be capped at 6%. Given the Status of tne Methow fish (ENDANGERED) versus the status of the LCR fish (THREATENED) I have at least as great of concern about the 1.8% impacts on the Methow population as I do about the 6% impacts the LCR population. You of course are free to feel differently.

Again I feel strongly that if one is to lobby for the fish we need to do so consistently across all fisheries if we are to maintain our creditability. Given that belief I will continue to point out what I consider to inconsistent positions as my primary concern is the fish - sorry if that offends you.

As always I'm more than willing to explain and/or defend my position or to supply information so that others may make their own informed decsisions.

Happy Holidays and my the New Year bring you tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Thanks for the quick response...

The private world, just like the public, is not blessed with unlimited resources, including manpower, money, or time.

Battles have to be chosen based on several different factors, including immediate necessity, ability to affect the outcome, and costs/benefits of acting or not.

On the Columbia River gillnet-n-release issue, there are tens of thousands of wild steelhead to be affected, there is a blatant sell-off of sportsman driven recovery efforts for small commercial fishery gain, there is a total disregard for components of the ESU's steelhead runs, the economic emphasis is grossly overbalanced against the fishery at all, much less one with tripled impacts...and it can all be avoided by those who wish to benefit from the increased impacts.

It is a dangerous example to set that if the fishery is woefully inadequate at providing any fruitful economic returns and woefully inadequate at being prosecuted anywhere near acceptable impact levels, that rather than require that the netters (and their friends at Reg. 5 and the Director's Office) be proactive in creating a fishery that has less impact and more economic returns, that they pursue instead a lowering of the bar, a significant lowering of the bar, to re-define "success" as what they are already doing, rather than change what they are doing to achieve "success".

The equivalent would be sportfishermen wanting to harvest wild steelhead on the Skykomish, and rather than support recovery efforts, and when the fish are sufficiently recover, fish in appropriate times, places, and manners to have harvest and assure preponderance of the runs, they lobby instead to just lower the escapment goals by 60%.

If the escapement goals were lowered by 60%, all of a sudden the Skykomish recovery efforts are an overnight success...the river is over escapement, and we can fish with impunity.

This is by redefining success, rather than actually achieving it.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate if we were perpetually stuck in the year "1984"...which, thankfully, we are not.

Would you have supported such an action on the Snohomish system in 2002 if the sportsmen pushed for it? Would you have gone to bat for them to get it done?

I'm guessing not...but it's what the managers at Reg. 5 are asking NOAA-F to do, and next month they'll be asking the Commision to sign off on it, and fishermen and advocates are not going to take it sitting down, nor are they going to feel bad about doing it because there is a sport season on the Methow.

In my last post to you I was not asking the legal status of the Methow and LCR stocks...I was asking the biological status, the r/s ratios, the replacement levels. There are certainly fish with "legal status" who are doing well, and some (PS Steelhead, for example) with no legal status who are doing very, very poorly.

If your point has been to show disdain for effort in one area while other areas are going unaddressed (regardless of magnitude of the issues), then your point has been made.

What then do you think about the merits of the Columbia River Gillnet-n-Release fishery, its biological and economic impacts, and the reasons for and against tripling the allowable impacts?

Thanks, as usual, for your time...I appreciate your points and responses very much.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I do not view this as an allocation issue...arguments for and against who gets to kill the most or the last fish will all be hashed out, too...but in this case, there is no allocation issue.

There is no allocation issue because the entire increase in the impact will go directly to the commercial fleet...and the issue is how biologically sound that is (or is not).

If sportsmen were going to see some of that increase, and they and the netters were arguing over who gets what percentage of it, then that would be an allocation issue.

This is about should the increase even exist at all...which I believe, it should not.

I am so pleased that I totally agree with Ramon for a change. Thanks for the insightful response that I think is right on target.

Smalma

I think Todd is correct in that we pick our fights as sports fishers. As a group we have not done all there is to do by any means but we have done more than other user groups towards cutting back our efforts to save fish. You can go down that all of nothing road if you want but this is a specific fight with some real ramifications for many other issues to come. This is a lopsided proposal to try to benefit a very small and not economically viable group. This is the same group of netters who refused to allow observers on board last season.

The bottom line is that there is just no logical justification for more netting when ESA listed or even threatened stocks are swimming in the same column of water as the target fish. Netting is too final, too all inclusive.

This proposal is nothing more than a changing of the rules to benefit a user group that cannot limit their impacts. Once the expanded fishery is allowed and the impacts even exceed the new 6% limit they can just say. Oh Well we did the best we could. Then the damage is done and the sports fishery gets to close to make up for yet another excess by the commercial fleet.

Sorry Smalma but I think your criticisms are too narrowly focused.

Must be the holiday season...

...Grandpa, Ramon, and Todd all agreeing on the same thing?

Ramon, didn't see your note to give you a call until now...sorry. I'll PM you with my cell number, or I can call your store over the weekend if you will be there.

Fish on...

Todd

Here's mine:

I am deeply disturbed by the Commission’s attempts to triple the allowable mortality rates on endangered wild winter steelhead “incidentally” caught in the Lower Columbia River tangle/gillnet fishery targeting hatchery spring chinook.

The entire sportfishing and conservation community is outraged by this irresponsible proposal. The conservation efforts and sacrifices we have made are paying off in healthier steelhead stocks. From leading the charge for selective fisheries, changing hatchery practices, promoting habitat restoration, to insisting on more responsible hydro-power practices, we sportfishers have fought hard to protect wild steelhead. We did not make these investments to restore wild steelhead only to have them die as bycatch in tangle/gillnets.

Indeed, many of the stocks are still too fragile to even consider raising impacts against wild steelhead. For example, WDFW biologists believe that tripling the netting impact would probably drive the Toutle River wild winter steelhead run to extinction. Furthermore, ocean conditions right now are extremely beneficial to wild steelhead returns. If we want the most “bang for our buck” to help endangered steelhead, now is the time to invest in additional estuarine and riverine restoration efforts, not in increased netting mortalities.

To their credit, WDFW has been testing the efficacy of small-mesh tangle nets over standard large-mesh gillnets to improve release mortalities for endangered wild spring chinook. But the unexpected results are irrefutable; while tangle nets help to reduce wild chinook mortalities, they are extremely efficient at killing non-target steelhead. Clearly, there are other methods of commercial harvest that allow the unharmed release of wild steelhead, yet they are not implemented or even considered. Instead of insisting that the commercial fishery improve the selectivity of its methods in targeting hatchery spring chinook, WDFW irresponsibly opted to request an increase in allowable bycatch mortalities. It’s not much different than asking a school system to lower its testing standards instead of re-tooling the curriculum to achieve better performance from its students. This is just plain wrong!

I believe your primary concern should be shaping policy to rebuild wild salmon and steelhead stocks. But there are important socio-economic issues as well. Because it will result in predictable cuts in future sportfishing seasons, this proposed action affects tens of thousands of sport fishermen and millions of Washington residents. This translates to reduced recreational fishing expenditures that fuel the southwest Washington economy as well as WDFW coffers. This proposal benefits a handful of commercial netters who profit at the expense of all other citizens. Listen to the collective will of the people and consider the plight of endangered salmon and steelhead stocks, then let your conscience be your guide. Do not allow this preposterous plan to be implemented.

TTT

Very nice letter, Doc!

This is from a post I put on another site...

********************
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Preliminary information is that the ODFW Commission will be having a public hearing on this issue in the first couple weeks of January, and that the WDFW Commission will follow suit about the same time, perhaps a little after.

It will be very important, besides writing letters to both Commissions and both Governor's offices, to go to those meetings, sign up to testify, and testify.

We really need to pack the places with people against this increased impact, and remind them that no matter what NOAA-F rules about the increase, that they alone are responsible for protecting wild fish runs and fishing in their respective states, and to not let parts of the LCR ESU go extinct, and to let decades of sportfishing restrictions, hydropower, and habitat work result in a short term economic benefit to very few people.

Biologically, economically, and culturally this proposal has very little, if any, merit.

At the meeting, after a few people testify, they will generally ask, due to time constraints, that if more people are going to come up and testify to the same thing as previous testifiers, to agree to not testify.

Don't take the offer.

If they have to stay for eight hours to allow each and every person to go up and have their say, then demand that they do just that.

Unlike the LCR managers from both states, who have been, and really are here, going to bat for the commercial guys, I think that the Commissions would like to do the right thing, and it would really help them out to give them a crutch to lean on, namely that overwhelming public sentiment has forced them to NOT authorize fisheries that will take advantage of any increases allowed by NOAA-F.

This also is not a "home state" issue...anyone from Washington, as I am, that can make it needs to go down to Portland and testify at the ODFW meeting...after all, they are making decisions that affect "your" rivers and fish...same with the Oregon folks, as many of you who can need to drive up to Olympia and protect "your" rivers and fish, too.

The last few years, and especially the last few months, make it very clear that we in the PNW are not going to get any help from the powers that be in D.C. in protecting our culture and our fish...we need to make it clear that we expect our State Commissions to do it.

Fish on...

Todd Ripley
VP Political Affars
Wild Steelhead Coalition
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com
c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com

Nice work on this issue, Todd.

But seriously, time to get off your keyboard now and go out and catch a steelhead.

Doctor's orders!

BTW I'm headed out the door now to do the same.

Doc,

This time of year I have the opportunity to fish once or twice a week...and I can pick my days, depending on my schedule.

If I can pick my days...Saturdays aren't them!

Unless, of course, someone wants to take me in their boat...then Saturdays are looking a little better!

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Got to fish on Monday and Wednesday...four steelhead hooked, three landed, two bonked, one already eaten!

Many silvers and chums released...they seem to just keep on comin' !

hey todd.... nice to meet you briefly last night at the christmas party.... if you get a day off for a drift sometime soon drop me a line

lupo,

Our gracious hosts last night made me the same invitation...hopefully soon we can all get out there together and knock a few 'heads!

Fish on...

Todd

This is just to throw a little fuel on this fire…

Last January I attended an ODFW meeting the was convened to discuss this proposal. In this meeting Steve King of ODFW let it slip that the original proposal by WDFW much higher… I emailed him after the meeting in an effort to get this info in writing… this is how it went

Question:
“at what part of the Biological Assessment did the State of Washington put forth their 17% incidental take proposal? What part of the chronology did it occur? Was it at the beginning of the 10 month process – just before your 11/07/03 testimony to the Commission – or after 11/07/03 but before 01/02/04 completion of this Draft Biological Assessment. When did both parties finalize the 5% to 7% incidental impact number?”

Answer from Steve King:
“The 17% consideration for wild winter steelhead impacts was only a
verbal discussion amongst ODFW and WDFW on a manager to manager basis.
It never went beyond that. The discussion occurred in December”

So in December of last year WDFW staff was proposing a 17% impact…
anyone here want to defend that?

Doesn't surprise me one bit. I think these "managers" have all lost touch with their humbler roots when they were real biologists.

I don't care who's trying to justify those numbers, they are completely indefensible from a biologic standpoint.

I think the commercial fishing interests convinced their lobbyists at Region 5 WDFW that they could not meet the guidelines and still net the springers in the CR. Their performance that first time out with those stupid tangle nets when they caught some 25,000 incidental steelhead was proof. After that they had no choice but to put forward a recommendation that "fit" with the reality of gill netting. Remember that their goal is to provide that "viable" commercial fishery that state statutes mention. That is always the fallback battle cry of WDFW and the commission any time they are questioned about doing something radical to help commercial fishing. That same state law mentions "quality" sport fishing.

Viable means that it can support itself and can survive without outside help. Quality sports fishing is open to real interpretation. I think the RCW needs to be changed to get rid of that viable language and focus on policy that takes into account the benefit of sports fishing and the tremendous economic benefit to the state it brings with it. The RCW should also take into account the "maximum sustainable survival of our fish" and toss out the "maximum sustainable yield" philosophy that helps these outlaw staff members of WDFW support their outmoded policies that blatantly support commercial fishing at all costs.
Just my humble opinion

Todd -
You asked me to expanded my take on this issue.

Bascially I see it as an issue with 3 broad components: 1)Management/process, 2) biological/data, and 3) allocation. I'll try to disucss each briefly.

1) The management paradigm used to manage this fisheries and most others in this era of ESA listings. Basically it allows at some fishing on non-listed stocks with limited impacts on the listed stocks. these allowable impacts are established so that the stock of conern is not unduely jeopardized. This paradigm encourages slective fisheries and without it there would be virtually no fishing for any species anywhere in Washington on the marine or anadromous waters.

There are large segments of the State's population that believe that there should not be any fishing that impacts the listed stocks - essentially shifting more of the conservation burden to the fishers and away from the habitat H. It is the potential shift from that paradigm that concerns me as it puts all fishing at risk. The trick of course is the development of allowable imapcts that don't significantly impede recovery efforts while keeping some fishing.

It is in this context that I made my comments earlier in the discussions.

2) the biological/data piece has 2 pieces -
Is the limits on the fishing impact appropriate for the stock(s) of concern? This assessment should include the impacts from all users in all fishing areas. In this case determination of the adequancy of the allowable impacts needs to include the sport impacts (main stem Columbia and the tribs) and commerical imapcts. If I recall correctally last year the model was a 2% sport fishing impact (mostly in the tribs) and a 2% in the commerical fishery. So what the proposal appears to doing is doubling the impacts from 4 to 8%. Is that appropriate? Don't know in that I have looked closely at the supporting information. presumably that will be a factor in NOAA's evaluation.

The second piece is whether the estimates of the impacts are creditable and supported by the available science. Again I have not looked closely the available information so am not really to make an assessment.

3) the allocation piece should be asking the question of what is the best or wise use of the allowable fishing in impact? First are those impacts being used to meet legal requirements and secondly are the decision makers address the scio-economic impacts in the process appropriately (fairly/wisely).

I would encourage you each to address the later aspects in your comments as you each feel is warranted. Those issues are appropriately addressed at the lcoal fishing level. If you support continuing to allow fishing under this paradigm then that aspect of this issue is probably best left for other discussions. Of course if one feels that this management paradigm is not a responsible approach then questioning it in this context and attempt to establish a precedence to aid in re-shaping management in other areas may be a workable strategy.

Hope the above is what you were asking for. I felt that addressing your Snohomish questions was unnecessary.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you tight lines
S malma

Aunty -
It may be I would is getting senile. My recollection maybe fuzzy - there is the split in impacts on the incidental wild steelhead, impacts on the non-target wild chinook and the allocation split on the hatchery chinook. Since I haven't followed the whole closely I could easily have things wrong.

Maybe Todd will clear it up for us.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you tight lines.
S malma

OK, so if as a sport fisherman I keep 1 extra fish on a river I may be looking at a felony charge of poaching along with a hefty fine and possible loss of equipment, etc. Yet since a commercial entity does this to thousands of fish we instead have WDFW trying to change the laws so that it is OK? I ask why aren't they fined $4000 per endangered fish as outlined in RCW 77.15.420 instead?

Here's some more information regarding the upcoming WDFW Commission meetings...

January 14th and 15th the Commission will be holding a "workshop", which is a meeting that is not open to the public, where they are briefed by the Department on upcoming issues. At that meeting the Department will brief them on the Col. River gillnet fishery and the request to triple the ESA impacts on the steelhead.

On Feb. 4th and 5th, the Commission will be holding a public meeting, in Olympia, to accept public comment, and Department comment, on many different issues, including the Col. River gillnet fishery.

This is the meeting that MUST be overwhelmingly attended by the sportsmen and conservationists to speak out against the increased gillnet impacts.

It is also important that the Commission receive all of our comments prior to the Jan. 14/15 workshop, so that they have the anti-increase perspective clear and present in their minds when they are hearing the Department's justifications for it.

On a happy note, the agenda for the Feb. meeting is not yet complete, so I don't know which day the public comment is being received for this...but it will probably be on the 5th...which is a Saturday! This ought to help us out immensely in getting lots of bodies there to take up space, time, and get all of our comments heard!

I have yet to hear what day(s) the ODFW Commission will be taking this up, but I'll post it as soon as I can find out.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Start making plans and carpool arrangements for that meeting!

Be careful with timing Todd...The commission has a history of rearranging their schedule to thwart too much public comment. Sometimes they make it the last item on the agenda Friday

Two things to remember, the director is a X-commercial fisherman and an advocate for commercial fishing, and Will Roehl is a ASSHOLE !!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty simple
Good work Guys !!!
Peace
Superfly

I generally refrain from commenting on these issues but this one is different.

I agree that this proposal makes no sense, however, there is a bigger point. That is, by advocating a three-fold increase in the mortality of wild steelhead, both WDFW and ODFW have lost the moral authority to compel other folks (e.g., BPA) to conserve steelhead as well.

If the State agencies can advocate for a increase in steelhead mortality, why not BPA, or PacifiCorps, or the Army Corps of Engineers, etc, etc? How about a three-fold increase in mortality at the dams?

Even worse, how can WDFW/ODFW even suggest these other agencies reduce their impacts thru spill and flow augmentation? They can't since, it appears, that they're not interested in salmon recovery either. Their duplicity is their undoing. Their moral authority is lost. Their credibility is crumbling.

And for what? This issue is as baffling as it is infuriating.

I can't believe that we have to rely on the Federal bureaucrats at NOAA to protect the steelhead from our own State fish and wildlife agencies.

Excellent point.... and oh so true. These guys need only to look in the mirror to see who the real enemy is.

Here's the information on the ODFW meeting:


Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
For more information call 800-720-6339 (ODFW) or 503-947-6002
Internet: http://www.dfw.state.or.us


For immediate release
Wednesday, December 22, 2004


Fish and Wildlife Commission to hear testimony on draft wolf plan, draft sage grouse plan, 2005 spring chinook seasons


SALEM – The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will hear public testimony when it meets Jan. 6-7 on a draft Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, Columbia River spring chinook season for 2005, draft Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation Plan and recommendations from a wildlife control task force.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is the policy-making body for fish and wildlife issues in the state. The meeting will occur in the Commission Room of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife headquarters building located at 3406 Cherry Avenue N.E. in Salem.

The official meeting of the Commission will begin at 1 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 6, 2005 with a public hearing on the draft Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and associated technical rules. The Commission will then reconvene at 8 a.m. on Friday, Jan. 7, 2005 and proceed through the rest of the agenda items in order. The following items are scheduled:

Director’s report on regional ODFW activities, U.S. v. Oregon negotiations, Hatchery Research Center construction;
Informational briefing on regulation options for Columbia River spring chinook salmon fisheries in 2005;
Adoption of the schedule of monetary damages used in assessing commercial fishing violations in 2005;
Informational briefing on proposal to waive fish passage requirements at Scoggins Dam at Henry Hagg Lake in Washington County;
Approval of timeline for review of the permanent disabilities permits program;
Informational briefing on draft Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation Plan; and
Informational briefing on recommendations from Wildlife Control Activities Task Force.
Public testimony will be taken on each agenda item. Sign-up sheets to testify will be provided at the meeting. Most agenda items will be posted to ODFW’s Web site at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Comm/schedule.htm.

Persons seeking to testify for up to five minutes on other issues not on the formal agenda may do so by making arrangements at least 24 hours in advance. “Unscheduled testimony” must be arranged by calling Katie Thiel, ODFW Director’s Office, at 503-947-6044. Unscheduled testimony will occur around 1 p.m., Jan. 7, and is limited to about six speakers.

Reasonable accommodations will be provided as needed for individuals requesting assistive hearing devices, sign language interpreters or large-print materials. Individuals needing these types of accommodations may call the Director’s Office at 800-720-6339 or 503-947-6044 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.



Fish on...

Todd

Any Grays Harborites planning on attending the Feb meeting please contact me by PM so we can start organizing a car pool to Olympia. Please indicate where you live and whether you prefer to ride or drive.... thanks.

Heres some more info --

Early next year the States of Oregon and Washington will decide whether to allow the commercial net fleet in the Columbia mainstem to triple their steelhead mortalities while netting spring chinook. The decision will likely be made by the Commission in Oregon, but it is unclear what process Washington will be following. As of late last week, NOAA fisheries has not approved the states application for the increase, but I would be surprized if they said no. The commissioners and the Governor's offices need to hear from citizens about how ill advised this is. Please take a moment to write to the commission chairs and make a specific request to have all of the Commissioners recieve a copy. Please also send us a copy, to nsia.aaron@comcast.net, The information from the Wildsteelhead Coalation, The Association of Northwest Steelheaders and NSIA is pasted below, and attached in a formatt that can be printed front to back. After you have written to your Commission, get two of your friends and neighbors to write, and print out copies to take to work. Please call 866 315 NSIA if we can be of assistance.

Dear Friends of Steelhead where ever you may be:





Many of you are already aware that the States of Washington and Oregon have applied to NOAA Fisheries to increase the allowable impacts on ESA listed steelhead in the Columbia by the commercial fleet. The request is to raise from 2% to 6% the mortality cap on wild winter steelhead to give the commercial fleet the ability to have a higher by-catch of wild steelhead while they are netting Spring Chinook Salmon out of the mainstem.



Members of the sportfishing and conservation community are outraged. After all, there have been decades of conservation efforts and sacrifices made the sportfishing community that is paying off in healthier steelhead stocks. From leading the charge for selective fisheries, changing hatchery practices, habitat and hydro protections, sport fishers have fought for protective measures for wild steelhead. We did not do so to transfer the biological benefits of our efforts over to the commercial fleet to die in tangle nets. It's not fair.



Indeed, many of the stocks are still too fragile to be raising impacts. For example, WDF&W's own biologists suggest that the proposed increase would likely result in the extinction of the Toutle River wild winter steelhead. Furthermore, ocean conditions right now are extremely beneficial to wild steelhead. This is the time to invest the recent increase of wild ESA steelhead in recovery, not in increased mortalities!



Small communities throughout Washington and Oregon are reaping the benefits of steelhead fisheries that are selectively targeted on hatchery winter steelhead. Literally tens of thousands of angler trips are spent in pursuit of winter steelhead in the lower Columbia. ODF&W has estimated that an angler trip in the lower Columbia is valued at $138.00 per day. Sportfishing for winter steelhead occurs during an important window to help sustain year-round family wage jobs. Looking at the last several years of data, there are almost yearly examples where the commercial fleet over fished their preseason quota. This would shut down sport fisheries in the mainstem and in the tributaries, where smaller businesses depend upon winter steelhead.



You must do three things right now!

1) Write (via fax or mail) the Commission Chairs today!

2) Send the same letter to the Governor's office today

3) Pass this e-mail on to others on your list.

Remember to stay professional and polite, but be clear that this is not acceptable. You are welcome to call any of us with questions, or if you need help. We at NSIA would appreciate a copy of your letter sent to: nsia.aaron@comcast.net



Norm Ritchie, President, Association of Northwest Steelheaders

Todd Ripley, Vice President of Political and Legal Affairs, Wild Steelhead Coalition c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com 425-281-0571

Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

866.315. NSIA

Thanks for the info

Does anyone know why these commercial fishermen can't string their gill nets outside the mouth of the Columbia River where there should be far less chance of intercepting wild steelhead and yet get their target fish?

Saturday, January 15, agenda at the workshop in Olympia:
18. COLUMBIA RIVER WILD WINTER STEELHEAD IMPACT RATE –
BRIEFING:
Department staff will brief the Commission on a request to NOAA for modification to the current impact rate allowed under the Endangered Species Act. In February, Department staff will request the Commission for policy guidance regarding wild winter steelhead management in the Columbia River.

Staff Report: Cindy LeFleur, Columbia River Policy Coordinator, IRM
Guy Norman, Region 5 Director

SlabHunter, is that Jan 15 meeting the forum for hearing public comment/testimony as well? Earlier in the thread, Todd mentioned something about Feb 5.

The January meeting is a workshop where the department makes their case to the Commission without the benefit of (or annoyance of) public input...

The February meeting is where the Commission will make their decision, and the public is invited to that meeting to make their wishes, concerns, and ideas known before the Commission makes their decision.

That is why it is important to get the letters in NOW, so that the Commission has a chance to see them before the workshop...we don't want the only opinion they have to be the one that the Department tells them they should have.

Fish on...

Todd

fishNphysician,

At the meetings I have attended in the past, they usually have a public input time scheduled at the start of the day(8:30?)
I'll call to be sure on Monday.(Phone: 360-902-2267 )
Like Todd stated above: they run a pretty tight ship during the workshop.

fishNphysician,

I was told there will be an opportunity for public input at the start and end of each day of the workshop.

According to the preliminary agenda (12-29-04) there will be opportunity for open public input at shortly after 9:00 am on the 14th, 8:30 am on the 15th, and late in the afternoon on both days. The staff report on raising allowable steelhead impacts in the lower Columbia will be late in the afternoon on the 15th.

They apparently encourage people to comment in the afternoon, unless they can only be present in the morning. I would take that to mean that you could comment on the steelhead issue on the 14th if you can't make it on the 15th. It cannot hurt to give commissioners some notes to digest overnight before they are briefed by WDFW staff. Sticking around till the end would be worth it too, in case you wanted to rebut an aspect of the staff report.

A good showing by this community at the workshop -- and then the Feb hearing -- will make an impression on the Commission and the Dept. Coming on the heels of the wild-steelhead release fight, it will demonstrate that recreational fishers are not only still serious and paying attention on a range of steelhead-conservation issues, but that they are ready to pick themselves up and mobilize on behalf of the resource whenever they think it's necessary.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Please remember to send your letters into the Commissions requesting that they not adopt NOAA-Fisheries' triple ESA impact on ESA listed wild steelhead in the lower Columbia River. This would set a dangerous precedent, one where "recovery" (which would allow for sport fisheries) is no longer the goal and "keeping them from going extinct" (which would allow for no fisheries) would become the goal.

******Columbia River Action Alert******************************

NOAA-F has cleared the way for the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife to allow the commercial fishing fleet on the Columbia to TRIPLE their allowable mortality impacts on ESA-listed wild steelhead in the lower Columbia River. Please take the time to submit written comments and attend the Commission meetings to show the sportfishermen’s outrage at this proposal, and to ask the Commissions to stop it in its tracks!



ODFW Commission Meetings:



Jan. 6&7 (already past)

Feb. 11 Troutdale, Oregon; They will take public testimony and make their decision at this meeting. For the agenda and information, go to http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Comm/schedule.htm



WDFW Commission Meetings:



January 14&15 Olympia, WA; This is a Commission workshop meeting, where they will cover a wide range of issues, including the Columbia River tangle net fishery and the increased mortality proposal. There will be opportunity for public comment both days, in the morning and in the afternoon.

Feb. 4&5 Olympia, WA; This is a Commission meeting, where they will take public testimony and make the decision on using or not using the additional increased mortality.



For the Washington meetings, go to http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/com/meetings.htm



Whether sportfishermen can make the meetings or not, everyone also needs to write up comments regarding NOT using the additional mortality allowed by NOAA-F, and get them to both the ODFW and WDFW F&W Commissions, and to both Governors' Offices. Here are the addresses and/or e-mails:



WDFW Commission: commission@dfw.wa.gov , 600 Capital Way, Olympia, WA 98501



ODFW Commission: ODFW.info@state.or.us , 3406 Cherry Ave. N.E., Salem, OR 97303-4924



WA Governor's Office: Bob Nichols, Governor's Natural Resource Advisor bob.nichols@ofm.wa.gov



OR Governor's Office: Jim Myron, Governor's Natural Resource Advisor jim.myron@state.or.us



This issue should be one that every sportsman in both states should be able to get on the same side of...that taking the last 20 years of recovery efforts by sportsmen, and the current, but temporary, better marine conditions, and sending the fish from those into gillnets as incidental bycatch is totally unacceptable.



The Wild Steelhead Coalition has hosted the Steelhead Summit Alliance several times over the past two years, which is an alliance of 40 sporting and conservation groups from the entire West Coast, including B.C., who are working on common goals in steelhead management, and how to implement those goals. It is also an information clearinghouse where information like the above meeting information is disseminated to thousands of sportfishermen throughout the region.



Get your groups involved so that they can not only get current information about steelhead issues coming up in the various states, but can also join in to help form the policies that sportsmen think should govern steelhead management. All groups are welcome to participate, to offer whatever expertise or perspectives they may have, and to take advantage of not only the great amount of expertise and knowledge among the other groups, but to network cohesive policies together for a region wide emphasis on steelhead management.



Please contact Todd Ripley at c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com for information about the upcoming Commission meetings, or other information, questions, or comments regarding the Columbia River incidental impact proposals.



Please contact Dave Bailey at captain@olypen.com for information about the Steelhead Summit Alliance, and how to get involved with this region wide effort.



Go to http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com for further information.



Thanks, and please take the time to make your voice, and that of the greater steelhead angler, heard in both Oregon and Wasington very clearly; tripling the allowable mortality of ESA listed wild steelhead in the Columbia River to help prop up a commercial net fishery that is not capable of fishing selectively and conservatively for the benefit of wild fish is UNACCEPTABLE.

Agenda for Saturday!

SATURDAY, JANUARY 15
8:30 AM

13. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The public is encouraged to share views of Department programs and topics of concern during this portion of the workshop.
NOTE: This time is set-aside for those who cannot be present later in the day. If workable, please provide your comments during the Open Public Input session later in the day.

14. HYDRAULIC PERMIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (H.P.M.S.) - BRIEFING:
Department staff will provide an overview and brief demonstration of the HPMS web application.
Staff Report:
Gayle Kreitman, Regulatory Services Section Manager, Habitat Program
Jim Eby, Program Manager, Information Technology Services

15. WASHINGTON INTERACTIVE LICENSING DATABASE (W.I.L.D.) - BRIEFING:
Department staff will provide an update for the Commission on the WILD Project and the status of plans to develop the next generation of the recreational license sales system.
Staff Report:
Jim Eby, Program Manager, Information Technology Services

16. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS UPDATE - RULE BRIEFING:
Department staff, along with Mark Plunkett of the Seattle Aquarium, will brief the Commission on proposed rule amendments and new WAC sections that would create Marine Protected Areas on beaches in six parks owned by the City of Seattle. The rule amendments will be proposed in approximately March 2005 through the expedited rule making process.
Staff Report:
Mary Lou Mills, Marine Ecosystems Manager, Fish Program

17. NORTH OF FALCON POLICY - BRIEFING:
Department staff will present a briefing on key elements of the Commission's current North of Falcon Policy (C-3608), which has a termination date of Dec. 31, 2004. The Commission will consider adoption of a renewed or revised North of Falcon Policy at its February 4-5, 2005,
Commission meeting in Olympia.
Staff Report:
Phil Anderson, Special Assistant, IRM
Patrick Pattillo, Salmon Policy Coordinator, IRM

18. COLUMBIA RIVER WILD WINTER STEELHEAD IMPACT RATE - BRIEFING:

Department staff will brief the Commission on a request to NOAA for modification to the current impact rate allowed under the Endangered Species Act. In February, Department staff will request the Commission for policy guidance regarding wild winter steelhead management in the Columbia River
Staff Report:
Cindy LeFleur, Columbia River Policy Coordinator, IRM
Guy Norman, Region 5 Director

I was down there today (at the Commission Meeting) to listen what was going on.

All I can say is

I CAN”T WAIT TO I GET THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE MEETING!!!

Then you will see what happen!

These two Briefing where amazing!

17. NORTH OF FALCON POLICY - BRIEFING:

18. COLUMBIA RIVER WILD WINTER STEELHEAD IMPACT RATE

I was there too.

Where does one find the transcripts?
I'm interested in attending the next meeting.

Hans

slabhunter

Call or write to Susan Yeager and ask for it.

Okay, I'll admit to having a problem with the mindset of the staff. Anyway.this is what I wrote to the Commission after the workshop:

Thanks for allowing the public input at the workshop. My input was toward item 18.
I believe my point may have been missed. There is a time and place for everything. The staff is proposing to continue gill/tangle nets on the mixed stocks in the Lower Columbia River (with a higher impact on steelhead). This is insane! With the bycatch of 2/3 (ESA listed salmon and steelhead) why in the world should staff continue to cling to the notion that gill/tangle nets should be used? This experiment has failed to show it is a viable way to prosecute the commercial fishery for hatchery salmon.
I believe it's not the commercial fisherman's' fault that they have such a high rate of bycatch since they are required to use the gear specified by staff. Perhaps they should use hook and line since it has proven to be more selective.
Also, the sealion problem on the river has been increased by the number of fish handled in the gill/tangle net process. (The critters see the boats and know there will be an easy meal of stunned fish to follow.)

Sincerly.
Hans M. Mak
(Shelton,WA)

Sounds like this will be an UPHILL battle, folks. Read this news release from WDFW:

CLICK HERE

Our "stewards" are actually prepared to defend a QUINTUPLING of the the 2% impact! Like I said in the MSY thread, when the WDFW mindset only has one tool in the box, that's the one they are going to use. HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST!


These guys just don't get it. Here's a perfect example:

"The proposed realignment of impact limits does not change our intention to minimize wild steelhead mortality," Norman emphasized.

Let's see our intention is "to minimize wild steelhead mortality," but we're going into this meeting to recommend killing 5 times as many wild steelhead. Can they even hear how stupid that sounds?

Can anyone out there say CREDIBILITY GAP?

Sounds Orwellian! We're going to safeguard native Steelhead by killing more of them.
SS

God we need to fire these people. Us uneducated people could do a much better job as we have some comman sense.

Maybe we will get a re-vote for govenor. In that case alot of the problems will be fixed. Maybe not fish management but im sure all the fat will be cut. And with things the way they are simce we are not getting a good product we might as well not be spending the money.

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091
Internet Address: http://wdfw.wa.gov

January 21, 2005 Contact: Guy Norman, (360) 906-6704



Public meeting to focus on Columbia River
wild steelhead impact proposal

OLYMPIA—A proposal to provide greater flexibility in setting incidental impact rates on Columbia River wild winter steelhead will be discussed during a public meeting Wednesday (Jan. 26) in Tacoma.

The meeting will run from 7 to 9 p.m., in the Tacoma Sheraton Hotel’s fourth-floor pavilion at 1320 Broadway Plaza in Tacoma. The session, hosted by the Puget Sound Anglers, will feature a presentation on the incidental impact proposal by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WFDW) staff.

In an effort to provide sustainable salmon-fishing opportunity while upholding recovery goals for wild winter steelhead, state fish managers are seeking greater flexibility in determining limits on wild steelhead inadvertently caught during salmon fisheries on the Columbia River.

The Columbia River wild steelhead impact issue also was discussed during a recent public workshop of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, and in a public meeting last week for WDFW fishing advisory groups in Longview.

I've been getting some conflicting info, but several guys who attended the Oregon meeting the other day got the discouraging impression that NOAA-F threw both ODFW and WDFW a big fat juicy bone and that this is pretty much a done deal. The public comment part is all for show.

Others argue that it is far from a "done deal". Don't know who to believe, but if there's even half a chance that sports can do anything about this travesty, we had better make one hell of a good showing in Olympia on Feb 5. My offer to start a carpool for the Grays Harbor coalition still stands. Send me a PM and let me know if you can drive or need a ride.

I like the WDFW play on words. "Flexibility"? That means they don't have to follow the rules so strictly and can bend them to suit their purpose which is to allow a commercial net fishery on the Columbia in March when large numbers of wild steelhead are present. And "inadvertently" should mean accidentally but since they know they will catch too many of these listed fish it is hardly inadvertent....predictable would be a better word.......Here is how an honest person would write that statement:

"Fish managers are seeking the legal authority to ignore protection for wild , listed, steelhead that we know will be caught by the commercial netters in unacceptable numbers."

Lets hear SMALMAS opinion or position on this issue based on the best available science of course.

Since im sure he has some insight on this.

I attended the January Commission meeting where Region 5 provided a "Green Sheet" on this issue. It states "A joint state public meeting will be scheduled for late January in Vancouver." I phoned Region 5 today and was informed that this meeting will not take place. They have a meeting in Tacoma on Wednesday (2 days after the written comment period closes) and they are trying to set up a meeting in - guess where - Ilwaco!
So the thousands of sport fishers in the Portland/Vancouver area will not get our promised public meeting.
Testimony at the February meeting is crucial, in my opinion. At least 4 commissioners have serious concerns, and the Director's own advisory board voted unanimously in opposition.

Which director would that be... Koenings?

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091
Internet Address: http://wdfw.wa.gov
January 25, 2005 Contact: Guy Norman, (360) 906-6704


Ilwaco meeting to discuss
Columbia River steelhead impacts


OLYMPIA—A proposal to provide greater flexibility in setting incidental impact rates on Columbia River wild winter steelhead will be discussed during a public meeting Feb. 2 in Ilwaco.

The meeting will run from 6 to 8 p.m., in the cafeteria of Ilwaco High School at 404 School Road. The school is located off State Route 101, just north of Ilwaco.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife staff will present information on the steelhead incidental impact proposal.

State fish managers are seeking greater flexibility in determining limits on wild steelhead inadvertently caught during salmon fisheries on the Columbia River, as part of its effort to provide sustainable salmon-fishing opportunity while upholding recovery goals for wild winter steelhead.

Other meetings on the steelhead impact issue included a recent Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission public workshop, a public meeting of WDFW fishing advisory groups earlier this month in Longview, and a public meeting of the Puget Sound Anglers scheduled for tomorrow (Jan. 26) in Tacoma.

Rich -
I had posted some comments on this thread in December. If after reviewing those comments you have specific questions I'll do my best to address them.

Tight lines
S malma

Would someone "in-the-know" please post a tentative agenda for the Olympia meeting next week.

When do we as sports stand a chance of making the biggest impact on the outcome of the meeting?

Come on folks, we need to pack the meeting hall! Who's in?

Last I saw, it is not listed on the posted agenda yet...however, the Columbia River tangle net fishery impact discussion will take place on...

... SATURDAY THE 5TH, IN THE MORNING. BE THERE BY 8 A.M.!!!

In Olympia, Natural Resources Building, on 11th and Washington right next door to the Attorney General's Office...can't miss it, it's right across Capital Way from the Capital itself...directly across the street.

Fish on...

Todd

Ask and ye shall receive.....


February 4-5, 2005, Commission Meeting
Natural Resources Building, Room 172
1111 Washington St SE, Olympia


Preliminary* AGENDA

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4 9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
Approval of Minutes
Commissioners' Discussion
Director's Report
Budget Update

2. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The public is encouraged to share views of Department programs and topics of concern during this portion of the meeting.

3. BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS - BRIEFING:
Department staff will brief the Commission on the requirements for and process by which the Department's operating and capital budgets are developed and brought to the Commission for consideration and submittal to the Office of Financial Management.

Staff Report:
Jim Lux, Assistant Director, Business Services

4. CATCH DATA RECORDING AND DEFINITION OF "DELIVERY"-- RULE ACTION:
The Commission will consider adoption of the following new WAC rule sections and permanent rule amendments:

New Sections
- WAC 220-16-007, Definition--Delivery;
- WAC 220-69-130, Sale under a direct retail endorsement;
Amendments
- WAC 220-69-240, Duties of commercial purchasers and receivers;
- WAC 220-69-241, Duties of commercial fishers; and
- WAC 220-69-280, Fish receiving ticket accountability.

Staff Report:
Evan Jacoby, Fisheries Administrative and Criminal Law Specialist, Enforcement Program; and
Mike Cenci, Captain, Statewide Marine Division, Enforcement Program

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
5. LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM UPDATE -- BRIEFING:
Department staff will brief the Commission on the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), which is a competitive grant process to provide financial assistance to private landowners for the protection, enhancement, or restoration of habitat to benefit "species at risk" on privately owned lands.

Staff Report:
Ginna Correa, LIP Coordinator, Wildlife Program
Jeff Skriletz, LIP Biologist, Fish Program

LUNCH BREAK
1:00 PM 6. BURCH MOUNTAIN POWER LINE - BRIEFING:
Department staff will brief the Commission on the status of the Burch Mountain Power Line easement across the Department's Swakane Wildlife Area in Chelan County.

Staff Report:
Dennis Beich, Region 2 Director
Matt Monda, Region 2 Wildlife Program Manager

7. KLICKITAT HATCHERY TRANSFER - DECISION:
The Commission will consider approval of the transfer of real title for the Klickitat Hatchery and relinquishment of the Castile Falls easement to the Yakama Nation. Department staff briefed the Commission at its June 6-7, 2003, and October 1-2, 2004, workshops.

Staff Report:
Bill Tweit, Columbia River Policy Lead, IRM
Larry Peck, Deputy Director

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
8. NORTH OF FALCON POLICY -- DECISION:
The Commission will consider adoption of the 2005-2006 North of Falcon Policy (C-3608). Department staff briefed the Commission on proposed changes from the previous policy at the January 14-15, 2005, workshop in Olympia.

Staff Report:
Phil Anderson, Special Assistant, IRM
Patrick Pattillo, Salmon Policy Coordinator, IRM

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
9. LANDING RECREATIONALLY CAUGHT FISH TAKEN IN CANADA WATERS INTO WASHINGTON PORTS -- RULE ACTION:
At the request of the Commission, Department staff will present permanent amendments to WAC 220-56-156, Landing Canadian origin food fish and shellfish, that would allow, in some form and circumstances, landings of recreationally caught salmon from Canadian waters into Washington state. The Commission will consider approval of the permanent amendments.

Staff Report:
Phil Anderson, Special Assistant to the Director, IRM

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
10. SALE OF WILD SHELLFISH -- RULE ACTION:
The Commission will consider adoption of permanent rule proposals that would establish a trial fishery license for harvesting wild embedded shellfish on private property and provide harvest accountability for purposes of better understanding wild shellfish populations:

- Amendments to WAC 220-52-018, Clams--Gear;
- Amendments to WAC 220-52-020, Clams--Commercial harvest;
- WAC 220-88D-010, Emerging commercial fishery--Commercial wild clams, mussels, and oyster shellfish fishery on nonstate tidelands and belands;
- WAC 220-88D-020, Designation of the commercial wild clams, mussels, and oyster harvest on nonstate lands as an emerging commercial fishery;
- WAC 220-88D-030, Eligibility to participate in the nonstate lands commercial wild clams, mussels, and oyster shellfish fishery; and
- WAC 220-88D-040, Nonstate lands commercial wild clams, mussels, and oysters--Application requirements--Survey and notification requirements--Incidental take prohibited.
Staff Report:
Evan Jacoby, Fisheries Administrative and Criminal Law Specialist, Enforcement Program

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
11. GEODUCK FISH TICKET COPY DISTRIBUTION -- RULE ACTION:
The Commission will consider adoption of proposed amendments to WAC 220-69-26401, Distribution of copies of shellfish receiving ticket, which would create a process for the Department of Natural Resources to more accurately track and account for geoduck harvest.

Staff Report:
Morris Barker, Ph.D., State Marine Resource Manager, Fish Program

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
12. COMMERCIAL RAZOR CLAM FISHERY -- RULE ACTION:
The Commission will consider adoption of proposed amendments to WAC 220-52-030, Clams--Coastal--Seasons and areas, that would clarify licensing requirements, provide better enforcement capability, and ensure fairness for licensed commercial razor clam diggers.

Staff Report:
Morris Barker, Ph.D., State Marine Resource Manager, Fish Program

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
13. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The public is encouraged to share views of Department programs and topics of concern during this portion of the meeting.

5:20 PM RECESS



SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5 8:30 AM 14. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The public is encouraged to share views of Department programs and topics of concern during this portion of the meeting.

15. BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT - BRIEFING:
At the request of the Commission, Department staff will brief the Commission on the revised critical habitat designation for Bull Trout, and will provide a comparison between the previous method and the revised method for designating critical habitat.

Staff Report:
Ross Fuller, Fish Management Division Manager, Fish Program

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
16. COLUMBIA RIVER WILD WINTER STEELHEAD IMPACT RATE -- DECISION:
The Commission will consider adoption of a new policy, Joint State Accord Concerning Wild Winter Steelhead Management in Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries, including delegation of authority to the Director to develop the final management regime in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Department staff briefed the Commission on this issue at its January 14-15, 2005, workshop in Olympia.

Staff Report:
Cindy LeFleur, Columbia River Policy Coordinator, IRM
Guy Norman, Region 5 Director

PUBLIC INPUT (Above Item Only)
17. 2005-2006 SPORTFISHING RULES -- RULE ACTION:
The Commission will consider adoption of permanent amendments to:

- WAC 220-56-115, Angling--Lawful and unlawful acts;
- WAC 220-56-118, Fish handling rules--Removal from water;
- WAC 220-56-128, Food fish fishing--Closed areas;
- WAC 220-56-129, Unclassified freshwater invertebrates and fish;
- WAC 220-56-130, Unclassified marine invertebrates and fish;
- WAC 220-56-282, Sturgeon, Areas, seasons, limits and unlawful acts;
- WAC 220-56-310, Shellfish--Daily limits;
- WAC 220-56-315, Crabs, shrimp, crawfish--Unlawful acts;
- WAC 220-56-320, Shellfish gear--Unlawful acts;
- WAC 220-56-325, Shrimp--Areas and seasons;
- WAC 220-56-326, Shrimp--Unlawful acts;
- WAC 220-56-330, Crab--Areas and seasons;
- WAC 220-56-350, Clams other than razor clams, mussels--Areas and seasons;
- WAC 220-56-380, Oysters--Areas and seasons;
- WAC 220-69-236, Description of catch record cards and required information;
- WAC 232-12-619, Permanent Washington statewide game fish rules; and
- WAC 232-28-619, Washington food fish and game fish--Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules.

Public testimony was received on the rule proposals at the November 5-6, 2004, Commission workshop; no additional public input will be accepted at this meeting.
Staff Report:
Ross Fuller, Fish Management Division Manager, Fish Program

18. MISCELLANEOUS AND WORKSHOP DEBRIEF
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.

19. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. We encourage the public to share views of Department programs and issues of concern during this portion of the meeting.

1:50 PM ADJOURN



Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
2005 Open Public Meeting Schedule
January 14-15, 2005 Olympia
February 4-5, 2005 Olympia
March 4-5 Olympia
April 8-9 Moses Lake
June 17-18 Yakima
August 5-6 Spokane
October 7-8 Olympia
November 18-19 Vancouver or Stevenson
December 2-3 Olympia

Commission conference calls are also scheduled for the first and third Thursday of every month.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional meetings, workshops, and/or conference calls may be scheduled when deemed necessary by the Chair and a majority of the members. Changes to this list will be posted on the website. Contact the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission office for further information.


*Preliminary agenda is subject to change. Agenda revisions and additional information are posted on the Commission web page. Contact the Commission Office with questions and to identify any special accommodation needs: (360) 902-2267, TDD (360) 902-2207.

Thank you BushBear. See you there at 8:30 Sat morning.

The Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Bulletin

http://www.cbbulletin.com/default.aspx

STEELHEAD IMPACT RULE CHANGE GENERATES PLENTY OF COMMENT

Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 (PST)


STEELHEAD IMPACT RULE CHANGE GENERATES PLENTY OF COMMENT

Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 (PST)

Letters, e-mails and phone calls are flooding in to Oregon and Washington fish and wildlife commissions to, in large part, protest a proposal to relax limits on the incidental take of protected wild winter steelhead during the commercial harvest of hatchery-produced spring chinook salmon in the lower Columbia River.

The state fish and wildlife agencies that produced the proposal say it allows them the necessary flexibility to provide sustainable salmon-fishing opportunities while remaining consistent with recovery goals for wild winter steelhead.

The state agencies last year asked that allowable impacts on winter steelhead be increased from 2 to 6 percent. The request was approved for 2005 season via a NOAA Fisheries supplemental biological opinion. It judged that the higher impacts would not jeopardize the survival of three steelhead stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act -- parts of the Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River and Middle Columbia River "evolutionary significant units" or ESUs. The Upper Willamette River ESU includes only winter-run steelhead populations.

State officials say that they will continue to manage fisheries to minimize steelhead mortality and that impacts would rarely reach or exceed 2 percent despite the increased flexibility.

The state commissions will soon consider adopting a new joint policy regarding steelhead impacts. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will take up the issue tomorrow (Feb. 5) and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission meets Feb. 11. Their policy guidance would be heeded by the Columbia River Compact as it manages the Columbia mainstem commercial fisheries that will likely begin in late February or early March. The Compact is made up of representatives of the ODFW and WDFW directors.

"The commission is getting a lot of feedback," said Cindy LeFleur, the WDFW's Columbia River policy coordinator. Likewise, is the Oregon commission, according to the ODFW's Compact representative, Steve Williams. Most of the early feedback is in opposition to the change, he said.

Sport anglers, who take an estimated 4 percent toll on the winter steelhead in tributary fisheries, have generally been opposed to a boosting of the impact limit for the commercial fishery. It is estimated that about 10 percent of wild fish hooked and released by recreational fishers do not survive.

Commercial fishers cite state and NOAA Fisheries data in saying that an average annual steelhead harvest mortality of as much as 10 percent is consistent with goals set out in a recently released Lower Columbia draft recovery plan. They also say increase impact flexibility increases the chance they can harvest their share of spring chinook. It is estimated that about 18.5 percent of steelhead released from small-mesh tangle nets die. The steelhead mortality associated with larger mesh nets is 30 percent.

Mainstem sport and commercial harvest are limited in springtime by impacts on fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In recent years impacts to listed Upper Columbia and Snake River spring chinook caused fishery closures while the impact to steelhead from the commercial fisheries totaled only 1 percent and 0.8 percent respectively. The steelhead impact limits for non-tribal sport and commercial fisheries combined has been 2 percent since 1998. Sport impacts are minimal on the Columbia mainstem.

"This is one of the most ill-conceived ideas I've ever seen come out of either agency," said Liz Hamilton, executive director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. Steelhead have been exclusively a game fish for non-tribal fishers since 1975 and have been placed "near the right hand of God" by anglers, she said. They have been heavily involved in efforts to restore habitat, protect the sanctuaries of spawning wild fish, implement mass marking so hatchery steelhead fish can be weeded out through harvest and fine-tune regulations.

"We didn't do this so they can become bycatch in nets. We did this so they would get back to the spawning grounds," Hamilton said of the wild fish. Sport fishers must release all unmarked steelhead.

The Northwest regional director of the West Coast's largest trade association of commercial fishers says the impact limits are a harvest allocation issue, not a recovery issue. The harvests are among the smallest of human factors in the decline of salmon and steelhead populations from historical levels, said Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association. He cited habitat degradation and hydropower development as the biggest culprits.

"We fight over the last 5 percent of the fish. We need to work together to make sure the pie gets bigger," Spain said of habitat problems that continue to limit recovery of many of the winter steelhead populations. He said there are some harvestable surpluses of the steelhead because of the habitat's limited carrying capacity.

The proposal has been well studied to assure it won't harm listed steelhead, and fisheries will be well monitored.

"All of these things are well analyzed to minimize bycatch and minimize incidental take," Spain said.

"This is a lid that was scientifically put on there and it says it won't jeopardize the recovery of the run," said Les Clark of the Northwest Gillnetters Association. And even though it allows the flexibility, new selective fishing methods and management strategies would prevent fishers from ever coming close to a 6 percent impact, he said.

Terry Turner of the Washington Council of Trout Unlimited said recently that his organization is opposed to any increase in the allowable take of wild winter steelhead until those populations are recovered. He said that, despite characterizations of the winter steelhead stocks as much improved, there remains many weak runs within those stocks.

He said information contained in NOAA's supplemental biological opinion released recently shows weak runs and poor rebuilding trends in five of the 11 tributaries where the listed fish spawn.

He also said the overall upward trend is buoyed by recent favorable ocean conditions. Instead of increasing the allowable freshwater impacts on the fish, the agencies should maintain protections to gird for times of less favorable ocean survival conditions, he said.

Commercial fishers who have gone through years of economic hard times want to have access to abundant hatchery chinook bound for Columbia River tributaries.

"The spring season is our most valuable season," Jack Marinkovich of the Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union said during a recent Compact meeting. The fish last year brought fisherman $4 to $5 per pound.

"We just cannot harvest a large enough amount to hold down the surplus escapement to the hatcheries, especially to the Willamette," Marinkovich said. With carefully orchestrated fisheries, the commercial fishers would not necessarily exact a greater toll on steelhead, he added.

Sport fisher Bruce Hunter, testifying during the same Compact, said the emphasis is wrongly placed on economics.

"You should maximize the effort to recovery the salmon, not harvest them," he said.

Angler Gary Kish said increasing the impacts would be "a very significant political mistake." Those who oppose funding for conservation efforts, and those who have worked and sacrificed to try rebuild fish stocks, would question such a decision.

"In this instance, I think it's a fair question," Kish said.

It was nice meeting so many board members (and ex-board members) at the Commission meeting. A very strong showing today against the commercial fishermen.... we outnumbered them probably 8:1 but even so, it turns out our best efforts were not enough to de-rail this irresponsible plan. I testified but did not stay thru the end. I got a phone call from someone who did, and the vote wasn't even close. Very discouraging to say the least.

On to the next battle I guess.

http://www.columbian.com/02062005/sports/240638.cfm

Officials bend on steelhead kill rate

Sunday, February 6, 2005
By ALLEN THOMAS, Columbian staff writer

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission agreed Saturday to allow up to a doubling of the incidental kill of wild winter steelhead in the Columbia River in 2005 if the change is needed to help the commercial fleet catch its allocation of highly prized spring chinook.

The panel voted 8-1 to increase the ceiling on the inadvertent wild steelhead take from 2 percent of the run to 4 percent for this spring only. The more telling vote was 6-3 against keeping the lid at 2 percent.

Next Friday, the battle over the controversial proposal moves to Troutdale, where Oregon's Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider the issue.

Steelhead are caught inadvertently in the commercial net fishery for spring salmon in February and March in the lower Columbia between the mouth of the Willamette River at Kelley Point and the ocean.

A strong run of 413,000 spring chinook is forecast to enter the Columbia, along with 27,000 wild winter steelhead. Commercial fishermen can not sell or retain steelhead.

Excellent table fare, spring chinook earn commercial fishermen $6 a pound or more, compared to 50 cents to $1 a pound for fall salmon.

A five-year agreement signed in 2001 between state, federal and tribal fishery agencies stipulated up to 2 percent of the wild winter steelhead could be killed as an incidental catch in order to harvest chinook.

Wild winter steelhead in the upper Willamette, lower Columbia and mid-Columbia areas are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The 2 percent limit was selected in 1998, when wild steelhead first were listed under the Endangered Species Act. At that time, the commercial fleet used large-mesh nets, which passed steelhead easily.

With the rejuvenation of the upper Columbia-Snake spring chinook run in 2001 came an opportunity for much larger sport and commercial fisheries.

The commercial season targets hatchery-origin spring chinook headed for the Willamette River and, to a much lesser extent, hatchery upper Columbia chinook.

To catch its share of Willamette salmon without using up its quota of wild upper Columbia chinook too quickly, the net fleet has shifted to tangle nets.

Tangle nets are a smaller mesh. They capture chinook and steelhead by the teeth or jaw, rather than the gills. Wild fish released from tangle nets have a much higher survival rate.

But tangle nets also result in a much higher handle of steelhead, thus the proposal to increase the incidental kill.

The proposal to increase the kill of wild winter steelhead has drawn the ire of sportsmen and wild-fish conservation advocates.

On Saturday, 27 of them testified before the Fish and Wildlife Commission, asking the panel to not waver from the 2 percent ceiling on steelhead. Eleven others, mostly Columbia River commercial fishermen, were in favor of an increase.

Guy Norman, regional director of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the goal is to stay within the 2 percent level. But the agency wants the flexibility to exceed 2 percent in years when the limitation would result in the gillnet fleet falling short of its chinook allocation.

Will Roehl, a commission member from Bellingham, said sportsmen kill as many as 6 percent of the wild winter steelhead in Southwest Washington tributary streams while catching hatchery fish, yet oppose the commercials getting more than 2 percent in the lower Columbia.

He said the "righteous indignation'' by sportsmen is "hypocritical.''

Commission member Bob Tuck of Selah was the lone holdout against the increase. He said there are good arguments on both sides of the argument, but "the tie goes to fish.''

Commission chairman Ron Ozment of Cathlamet pointed out that the decision is only for 2005.

Both the Oregon and Washington departments of Fish and Wildlife have committed to extensive risk assessments on wild winter steelhead runs prior to next year.

Here are some more article to read:


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/exclude/1107608841300720.xml

Salmon plan could sacrifice steelhead
To help Chinook gill-netters, Oregon and Washington want to raise the allowed accidental kill of wild steelhead
Saturday, February 05, 2005
JOE ROJAS-BURKE

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/index.ssf?/base/sports/1107608824300721.xml

The Oregonian
Increased gill-netting a bad idea after dry winter
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Bill Monroe