WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention moratorium - Aug 28

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Chris Scoones, Jun 23, 2004.

  1. Chris Scoones Administrator

    Posts: 3,581
    North Bend
    Ratings: +295 / 0
    forward

    =====================================
    June 23, 2004

    Dear Interested Citizen:

    The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will hold a hearing to receive public comment regarding possible amendments to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) rules related to the two-year wild steelhead retention moratorium. The hearing will take place on August 28, 2004, at the Kitsap Conference Center in Bremerton, Washington, beginning at 10:00 a.m. The agenda will be posted soon on the Commission's webpage at the following URL: http://wdfw/wa/gov/com/meetings.htm

    At the Commission's meeting on February 6, 2004, steelhead sportfishing rules were amended and a two-year wild steelhead retention moratorium was adopted. The Commission received many comments and a petition to initiate rulemaking in response to its action adopting the moratorium. On April 29, 2004, the Commission directed Department staff to commence rulemaking regarding the wild steelhead retention moratorium, and rule change proposals were filed on June 18, 2004.

    The August 28, 2004, public hearing provides interested persons the ability to make oral comments to the Commission on the rule changes proposed by staff. The Commission is seeking public input on whether these proposed changes should:
    · Be adopted as proposed, which would revoke the moratorium on wild steelhead retention, reopen 12 rivers to retaining wild steelhead, and allow anglers to retain 1 wild steelhead per day and up to 5 wild steelhead per licensing year (see "Proposed Rule Changes" on the enclosure);
    · Be amended in some fashion that you describe (for example; a change in the annual limit for wild steelhead; reopening some, but not all, of the rivers; or other measures to restrict wild steelhead harvest); or
    · Not be adopted (retain the current rules; see "Current Rules column" on the enclosure).

    If you do support some amount of wild steelhead retention, the Commission would be particularly interested in hearing your views on what the annual limit should be. Although the staff proposal is to reinstate the previous annual limit of 5 fish, we want to consider a range of possible annual limits if the decision is made to allow wild steelhead retention.

    The enclosed table details the current rules resulting from passage of the wild steelhead moratorium (middle column), and the staff proposals to reinstate the wild steelhead retention fisheries that were in place before the moratorium was adopted (right-hand column). The Commission is seeking input as to the best course of action in regard to the staff proposals. If you recommend amending the proposed changes, please include details of the amendments you would support and the reasons for your recommendation.

    Oral testimony may be presented only at the August 28 meeting (three minutes maximum). You may also pre-submit those comments via email to: Commission@dfw.wa.gov.

    If you are interested in providing comments on the proposed changes but are unable to attend the hearing, you should send your written testimony to the Commission at the above email or the following address:

    Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
    600 Capitol Way North
    Olympia, WA 98501

    After the August 28 public hearing, the Commission will consider adoption of the proposed rule changes during the next regularly scheduled Commission public meeting, scheduled for September 2, 2004, via telephone conference call. No public testimony will be taken during the conference call or at any time after the August 28 meeting. For information on how to attend the September 2 meeting, please contact the Fish and Wildlife Commission office at (360) 902-2267.

    This letter is available in alternate formats upon request. Please contact (360) 902-2200 or TDD (360) 902-2207, and allow seven working days to process your request.

    If you are a person of disability and require accommodation for attendance at the August 28 meeting, please contact Susan Yeager at (360) 902-2267.

    We value citizen input and want to thank you for your interest in Washington's resources.

    Sincerely,

    Lew Atkins
    Assistant Director
    Fish Program
  2. Mike Etgen Not Quite A Luddite, But Can See One From Here

    Posts: 1,433
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    New River Mike

    I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but this sounds very much like, "We're going after wild steelhead and it's just a matter of how many and where."

    Man, we need to pack the place and bury this idea, if it isn't already a done deal...:beathead
  3. chadk Be the guide...

    Posts: 5,057
    Snohomish, WA.
    Ratings: +41 / 0
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    hmmm...

    "...If you do support some amount of wild steelhead retention, the Commission would be particularly interested in hearing your views..."
  4. Stephen Rice Senior Member

    Posts: 1,479
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Yeah I wonder where the idea came from in the first place??? anyone wanna venture a guess!
    Steve
  5. Steelheadjunky Member

    Posts: 66
    Redmond, WA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Yah this is the most biased thing I have ever seen. They are saying that they aren't "particularly interested" in those that support the moratorium or WSR no exceptions. If you feel that this is biased you should let the commission know with an email or a call. I know I have let them know how I feel already today. This is a joke and they sound like they have made their minds up already. They need to hear from every single person out that that supporst WSR and the mortatorium, now more then ever.

    JJ
  6. Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Posts: 3,979
    Olympic Peninsula
    Ratings: +646 / 0
    I have postponed a guiding date in SW Alaska for that WDFW testimony date.

    My suggestion:
    Since you only have three minutes to speak your piece- make it count by writing it out and practising it a little to get it together. Dont waste a word of your precious time on referring to the people who incessently whined and sniveled to have WDFW hold this unnecessary meeting- just make every moment of your testimony count on behalf of the Wild Steelhead.
  7. Rob Blomquist Formerly Tight Loops

    Posts: 1,343
    Mountlake Terrace, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +1 / 0
  8. hikepat Patrick

    Posts: 1,804
    Des Moines, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +12 / 0
    Intresting when I checked my email they had sent a WDFG sent a message to me as a concerned citizen even though I had sent a letter to have all Wild Steelhead released.

    I will plan to attend the meeting myself.
  9. Nick Andrews New Member

    Posts: 487
    Bremerton, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I will be there for this. I live in Bremerton, so anyone interested in going and needs a ride from the ferry or something give me a heads up. This is just bullshit and it needs to stop. Now they are scare that it is going to court. So they are trying to back out of the moratorium They need the moratorium and that is that so lets make it known at this meeting we support it all the way. -Nick
  10. o mykiss Active Member

    Posts: 1,303
    .
    Ratings: +176 / 0
    So what happened here? I had expected that they were going to have a public hearing and comment period on a proposal to keep the 2 year moratorium in place. This looks like they are putting out a proposal to go back to the pre-moratorium rules. Anyone have any insight into how it ended up this way. It is definitely a harvest-biased proposal.
  11. Steelheadjunky Member

    Posts: 66
    Redmond, WA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Good question.

    So Forks appealed the Moratorium rule. So the Mortatorium is the law of the land, as of right now, and the appeal is to repeal it. So the testimony is to see if people want to keep the moratorium or repeal it. They are giving themselves an out to by putting out they may modify the purposal.

    Hope that makes sense.
  12. mcoomer New Member

    Posts: 159
    Sammamish, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Chris,
    Would you pin this thread to the list?

    Mike
  13. Les Johnson Les Johnson

    Posts: 1,590
    .Redmond, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Wild Steelhead Moratorium challenge not unexpecte...

    The City of Forks and others have petitioned to have the moratorium reviewed which is part of the state legal process. They feel that if they are unable to kill wild steelhead that they will lose fishing business which will further impact the dismal economy of the area. The move was not unexpected. The moratorium can be overturned, modified, or remain in place as is. The Wild Steelhead Coalition was prepared for this and we have been working on our response at the hearing for several weeks.
    What is very important is that people in favor of retaining the moratorium fill the hearing room in Bremerton to overflowing.
    Those of you belonging to fishing clubs, FFF, TU, AR, etc., will be notified about our hearing strategy and we'll be asking for a strong letter-writing campaign. I will keep you posted on this web site, as I'm sure others will.
    Remember, simply trading responses back and forth on this web site will not do the job. You know the date of the hearing and where it is. You have ample time to arrange a day off from work, or to otherwise change your schedules so that you and your friends can attend the hearing.
    Good Fishing,
    Les Johnson, VP Communications
    WILD STEELHEAD COALITION
  14. Brian Simonseth Banned or Parked

    Posts: 536
    Skagit, Stillaguamish mostly
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Wild Steelhead Moratorium challenge not unexpecte...

    Hey Boys/Girls

    If you can’t make it (You should be there in person) E-mail a letter of support!
    And when you give your testimony give a copy of it to each commission members!
    Like Les said lets pack that building to the rafters with supporter of the moratorium!
    :smokin
  15. BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Posts: 2,879
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Wild Steelhead Moratorium challenge not unexpecte...

    I just back from a week's fishing on the St. Joe in Idaho and now I find this on my computer. What a reality check after being in dreamland!

    I don't like the tone of the Commission's remarks. It sound's like a done deal. It's not a question of whether we will kill or not, but rather that we will kill wild fish and the question now is just how many and on what rivers.

    So the Queen of Kill has been a busy little lady. I call again for a complete and total boycott of the City of Forks and all the business there-in.

    I will have plenty to say and to write about this, as usual, and I will attend the meeting in Bremerton even though that is about the last thing I want to do.

    But I will not give up the fight for these fish. I will not bear any guilt that I failed to do what I could. And I, read we, will win because what we are asking for is right. Right will conquer wrong if enough good people will just come forward.

    Robert J. Lawless,
    President of Washington Rivers Forever (WRF), an organization that is committed to saving the rivers of our state from the forces of greed, corruption, and wrong doing.
  16. Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Posts: 3,979
    Olympic Peninsula
    Ratings: +646 / 0
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    I dont know this for certain; my impression is that the word "staff" in the announcemewnt, regarding the intention to going back to a pre-moratorium harvest regime on wild steelhead in Washington, means the "WDFW Sportfishing Staff",and not the "Commission or Commissioners".So I have to wonder if the vocabulary of this announcement isnt just a very public way of assuring that all "concerned" citizens understand that this meeting is an oportunity for all "sides" of the issue to be heard.

    The WDFW Commission is there for us to provide our input on these things. Without the commission we would be taking what WDFW "gave us" all of the time without any citizen recourse or involvement in the management of our wildlife resources.

    The only way that we can make a difference now is by our personally, publicly, testifying at the announced meeting in Bremerton on August 28th on behalf of the wild steelhead and their continued full protection.
  17. Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Posts: 5,650
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Ratings: +540 / 0
    Wild Steelhead Moratorium challenge not unexpecte...

    Bob, You might as well boycott Port Angeles, Joyce, Sequim, Hoquiam, Aberdeen and a bunch of other places, because I have talked to people who live in those towns who are displeased with the moratorium. Though I don't agree with them myself, I will continue to buy gas, groceries, & supplies in Forks if I need them when I am passing thru or fishing or camping in the area. I was just up there and everyone I talked to was very friendly.

    Consider this: If you boycott the town of Forks, and it causes even more economic downside, then the residents will probably want to catch and eat more fish in their struggle for survival. And the game wardens can't be everywhere all the time...

    If I can't make it to the meeting, I will be sure to write another letter to the Commission in favor of permanent statewide wild steelhead release in all rivers.

    Jimbo
  18. BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Posts: 2,879
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Wild Steelhead Moratorium challenge not unexpecte...

    Your points, as usual, are well taken.

    I am far too old to think that the boycott will work like a magic wand and the Forkians will cease forking the resource. It is more of a matter of a personal committment not to support the enemy. Had Forks joined us in our endevor to save the wild fish, your letter would be unnecessary. The Moratorium would have stood.

    Now, I'm afraid what we have is that one of the conservation-minded commissioners has wavered e.g. someone got to him (the Queen of Kill? the Governor?) and he has changed his "thinking."

    Remember the original vote was only a one vote majority with the chair dissenting.

    Whether we can win or not remains to be seen. I will not take the rather cynical view that it is all a done deal and the meeting is just "pro forma" to add some legitimacy. I will go; I will boycott; and hopefully I will sleep at night.

    Bob, the Argument that others are doing it will never amount to much with me.:professor :beer2
  19. Les Johnson Les Johnson

    Posts: 1,590
    .Redmond, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Accenuate the positive

    Everyone,
    I'm sure that we all feel that there is bias in some of the WDFW/Commission rhetoric of late. Be that as it may, and considering the conviction of the City of Forks et al, petitioning the Moratorium (which they did by the book) our task is to gather our numbers and let the Commission and Jeff Koenings know that we stand squarely in favor of continuing the Moratorium.
    Anyone who wishes can boycott the businesses in Forks, or Port Angeles or Aberdeen and probably sink a few of them. However, that certainly is not my reason for supporting the Moratorium. I'll continue to spend my money in Forks and nearby hamlets only if the Moratorium is kept in place.
    What bothers me is that Rep. Jim Buck doesin't seem to understand the term "long-term plan." And it is just that, a long-term plan that people on the Olympic Peninsula need. They need light manufacturing, school training programs and enlightened thinking toward tourism in order to recover their long-term prosperity. Killing the rest of the Olympic Peninsula's wild steelhead is another band-aid. We haul products in from China, organic milk to Washington from Wisconsin and fish from Chile. Don't tell me we can't haul computer hardware, or something similar from Forks to the I-5 corridor.
    Until a long-term plan is established, I lay the problem at the feet of our state officials. It is up to us to change all of this....and start by turning back this attack on the Moratorium
    Good Fishing,
    Les Johnson
  20. Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Posts: 5,650
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Ratings: +540 / 0
    Accenuate the positive

    Good points, both Les and Bob.
    I had a conversation last week with an elderly couple (looked to be in their 70's) from Port Angeles, and I was somewhat taken aback by the extreme short-term nature of their thinking. We were discussing the Beardslee fishery in Lake Crescent, and the woman stated that she "hated the National Park Service for ruining the fishing in Lake Crescent," by making it catch and release and not allowing downrigger fishing. (Yup, she blamed the Park for "ruining" the fishing). I remarked that perhaps the Park Sevice was trying to save a depleted fishery. She had nothing else to say on the subject, wished me good luck, said "God bless you!" to me, and we parted company.
    I suppose they figure that since they won't be around to enjoy it in a few more years, that the long-term health of the fishery means nothing. Either that, or they don't trust or pay heed to any scientific evidence that might make them reconsider their position. Alot of O.P. residents have never liked the Park Service's rules and regulations...just plain selfish greed, I guess.

    Jimbo