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

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

  1. Jim Wallace

    Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    571
    Location:
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Accenuate the positive

    After walking around in circles (mowing lawns)for several hours yesterday afternoon, and thinking about this issue, I can see Bob's and Les's point on boycotting Fork's businesses if the Moratorium is overturned. Like Les, I will continue to spend some money in Forks "only if the Moratorium is kept in place."
    The mayor and people of Forks say that they fear loss of business due to the Moratorium. Well, I now agree that we must make them fear loss of business if they succeed in overturning it.
    I'm no big spender...only spent about $35 there last week on gas and groceries... maybe only drop $100 or so there each year.
    It isn't easy to draw investment in light industry out into the boonies. Lots of excuses such as: having to train the workforce, transportation hassles and costs (this is a valid concern, having experienced driving hwy 101 alot in the Winter), schools, distance from hospitals, executive's wives might hate not being near big shopping centers, fewer cultural choices and happenings, etc....all of which are either BS or can be overcome, IMO.
    I think money in the form of grants and low-interest loans should be available (maybe it already is???) for economic development purposes to local Forks entrepreneurs who have sound business plans, along with tax breaks and other incentives. These things don't happen by themselves and might not ever happen unless the people of Forks really want it and take the initiative, and then they may need some assistance.

    Jimbo
     
  2. bodegahwy

    bodegahwy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, CO.
    Accenuate the positive

    Does anybody know of a 501-C3 qualified entity fighting this issue?
     
  3. Steelheadjunky

    Steelheadjunky Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA.
    Accenuate the positive

    Fighting which way? For or against?

    The Wild steelhead Coalition is fighting for the moritorium. We are 501 C3. You can read more about us at http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com or email wscmembership@yahoo.com for more information. Myself (Jeff Johnson) and Les Johnson (searun) are both on the BOD of this organization. We are involved in a lot of steelhead issues other than this one too.

    JJ
     
  4. bodegahwy

    bodegahwy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, CO.
    Accenuate the positive

    Against the change or or for protecting the wild steelhead however you want to look at it. The company I work for contributes to issues like this, but only through 501-C3 qualified entities. I'll email you.
     
  5. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    Accenuate the positive

    I may be pretty much ill-informed about this issue (I am with most others), but I have always wondered why more organizations and businesses have not wieghed in against the killing of the last few wild fish in this state.

    Certainly the Sierra Club, even Peta, and various hiking groups, supporters of the National Parks System, magazines about conservation and the outdoors as well as many others that I can't even begin to think of at the moment come to mind when I try to look about for alllies in this fight. Yet, I don't hear them.

    The only organization I heard speak at the Port Townsend WDFW hearing was the Wild Steelhead Coalition, which I am joining today if possible, speaking in favor of the Moratorium. Surely there must be others.

    Does anyone know of a business or organization besides the WSC who is actively working to support the Moratorium?

    Please post if yo do, I might join or patronize them as well.

    Bob, the Suddenly looking about for all the support I can. We will need it I fear.
    :professor
     
  6. miyawaki

    miyawaki Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    985
    Location:
    Kent, Washington, USA.
    Accenuate the positive

    Fellow Flyfishers, it is time to make our voices heard. We are the only ones who can speak for the fish. They are the ones who need our help.

    FYI: Last week, the Steelhead and Cutthroat Policy Advisory Group voted 8-7 to support the Moratorium. A letter has been forwarded to the Director advising him of our vote.

    Leland.
     
  7. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    .
    Accenuate the positive

    Steelhead and Cutthroat Policy Advisory Group - what is it? And why so many no votes?
     
  8. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,086
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    801
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    I have a suggestion. Since the wild steelhead of this state are a public trust for all of the citizens, why not get all of the citizens involved?

    My efforts will be to directly, personally, contact at least two people every day about the Wild Steelhead Moratorium issue. These will not be fishers but ordinary citizens.

    My goal will be to advise them that the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife Commissioners are going to be deciding the fate of the last runs of Wild Steelhead in Washington on August 28th at the Bremerton Meeting, and that they can make a difference for the fish by speaking out. I will also be sure to provide them with the email address of the Commission, WDFW Director and Governor's offices.

    So far I have been pretty successful in exceeding my goals and most people are appalled to hear about what is going on with these wild fish, with the moratorium, and with the City of Forks.

    Most of us have address lists and email lists, let's get to work now.
     
  9. miyawaki

    miyawaki Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    985
    Location:
    Kent, Washington, USA.
    Accenuate the positive

    There are a number of advisory bodies out there. They may be created by the Governor, Legislature, or agencies. The Steelhead Cutthroat Policy Advisory Group was established by the WDFW to advise the department on current and key policy issues associated with fish and wildlife management and conservation.

    There are currently 24 members of the group and not all are present at all times. The vote last week was 8-7 in favor of the Moratorium. Why so close? Simply because not everyone believes that wild steelhead should be released. The funny thing was, we didn't debate the issue because we all knew no minds were going to be changed. This is a polarized political issue guys and the squeekiest door is going to get greased.

    Leland
     
  10. bodegahwy

    bodegahwy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, CO.
    Accenuate the positive

    Hi Bob,

    In response to your question about supporting these issues... there are folks out there. Over the years we have run several advertising campaigns in support of wild salmon and sponsored mailing campaigns. We also contribute to a number of oganizations the are working on this including the WSC. Here are links to things we have supported in the NW states during the last year and another to things related to water.

    Scroll down and enter a state where requested:


    http://www.patagonia.com/enviro/enviro_grants.shtml


    Here are the water and marine related grants:

    http://www.patagonia.com/za/PDC/Pgonia/grants_watr.jsp


    You will find several campaigns we have run in support of wild Salmon at this link... just scroll down:

    http://www.patagonia.com/enviro/reports/archive_enviro.shtml
     
  11. bodegahwy

    bodegahwy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, CO.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Well, you contacted me... I have passed the word, hopefully we can help. Thanks. Two people a day is a good plan...
     
  12. Brian Simonseth

    Brian Simonseth Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Skagit, Stillaguamish mostly
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    I’m glad to be on Steelhead and Cutthroat Policy Advisory Committee!
    SCPAC vote would have been 10 -7 in-favor of the moratorium, the meeting ran longer then allotted time so two guys had to leave for Eastern Washington; that where at the meeting.

    Bob L. I’m glad you’re joining WSC!
    Come and join us at the meetings, great programs and info on Wild Steelhead.

    Bob T. two thumb’s up award to you!

    Come and join us August 28th, show your support for WILD STEELHEAD!

    Brian Simonseth
     
  13. miyawaki

    miyawaki Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    985
    Location:
    Kent, Washington, USA.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Fellow flyfishers,

    Here is the kind of politics we are up against this time around.


    Leland.




    April 13, 2004

    Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
    ATTN: Commission Members
    600 Capital Way North
    Olympia , WA 98501

    Dear Members of the Commission:

    We are writing to express our disapproval of the commission's action to institute a two year ban on the retention of wild steelhead on western Olympic Peninsula rivers. We believe the commission's action violated the Administrative Procedures Act, is unsupported by fish management science and is contrary to state law expressed in RCW 77.

    This letter will clarify the relationship between the legislature and the commission and then explain the reasons for the opposition to the ban on wild steelhead retention.

    RCW 77.04.012 defines the mandate of the department and commission when it states:

    "The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish and shellfish only at times or places or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission, does not impair the resource."

    "The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens... ."

    RCW 77.04.013 further clarifies the legislature's intent saying:

    "The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996 , the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department."

    "The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

    RCW 77.04.055 sets out the duties of the commission:

    "Commission - Duties, (1) In establishing policies to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat, the commission shall meet annually with the governor to:

    (a) Review and prescribe basic goals and objectives related to those policies; and

    (b) Review the performance of the department in implementing fish and wildlife policies. The commission shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations.

    (2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.

    (3) The commission shall establish provisions regulating food fish and shellfish as provided in RCW 77.12.047.

    (4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.

    (5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.

    (6) The commission shall have the final approval authority for the department's budget proposals.

    (7) The commission shall select its own staff and shall appoint the director of the department. The director and commission staff shall serve at the pleasure of the commission."

    Conversations with commissioners reveal the commission believes it is a policy making body. This is not the case. The state constitution clearly gives the legislature the job of creating public policy. The commission has the job "In establishing policy to preserve, protect and perpetuate wildlife, fish, and wildlife and fish habitat" of meeting with the governor annually to review and provide basic goals and objectives; and to review the performance of the department in implementing those policies. Changes in policy direction are to be presented to the governor and the legislature for enactment into law. The commission has no ability to create its own policy and is limited to the role of a consultant in presenting new directions it feels the state should follow. Changes from existing legislative direction to those new directions are not to be pursued unless legislation is enacted giving the commission authority to implement the change.

    With this in mind, the commission's decision to ban retention of wild steelhead for two years is a policy change made without legislative approval. In fact, legislators have consistently told the commission over a two year period that a rule of this type would be considered a policy change and further indicated that legislative approval would not be forthcoming unless WDFW fish management showed the runs were in trouble. Wild steelhead runs on the western Olympic Peninsula rivers are not endangered. According to WDFW and tribal biologists they are not impaired and are capable of supporting the limited retention called for in 2003-2004 fishing regulations. Therefore, the decision violates the legislative directive that the commission "SHALL" attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens..." AND the commissions duty that it "shall maximize fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities compatible with healthy fish and wildlife populations."

    The commission's failure to consult coastal Indian tribal co-managers when considering the ban violates federal court requirements for co-management of the runs under US v Washington .

    The commission's failure to provide adequate public notice that the rule would be considered is at least a violation of the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act if not an outright violation of RCW 77.04.130. It is also a violation of the public's intent for an open commission process as expressed in R-45 (RCW 77.04.013) that specifies "The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

    The legislature spends a good deal of taxpayer money to employ wildlife managers at WDFW. The ban ignores the science presented by these managers and in doing so brings into question the commission's commitment to sound wildlife management. The legislature has also spent a great deal of money on salmon recovery. One must question why, if the commission is going to prevent fishers from retaining fish from healthy runs.

    In conclusion, we feel the commission short circuited the legislative process when it adopted the rule. The rule should be rescinded and if the commission still believes it is necessary should be submitted to the legislature as request legislation in time for the 2005 Legislative session. We look forward to your response.

    Sincerely,

    Representatives who have signed: Buck, Sump, Blake, Schoesler, Pearson, Kessler, Orcutt, Armstrong, Hatfield, Hinkle, Clements

    Senators who have signed: Sheldon, Morton, Hewitt, Hargrove, Doumit, Honeyford, McCaslin
     
  14. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Letters, e-mails, phone calls, personal appeals--all have to go out to each and every representative and senator who signed this miserable letter.

    We must ask them to recant-to withdraw their endorsement of this anti-conservation letter. We must give them good reason to do so, one of which being that you will withold your vote come November. We are in control. We must just do what is necessary to exert that control.

    Jim Buck will get a what for from me and so will the others.

    These are the big guns and the forces are joined. For the sake of the last few wild fish, we must win this one.

    Good luck to everyone who is fighting for the fish. May the others not sleep well at night knowing that they are destroying what little there is left.

    Bob, the My tent will not fold.:reallymad
     
  15. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,086
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    801
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    "Healthy Runs of fish"...

    They use that term a lot.

    One of the most significant statements in this letter is the underlying notion that the WDFW and Commission are there to provide and "maximize hunting and fishing opportunities".

    One could just as easily ask: "What about the citizens who do not choose to hunt or fish? Arent the wildlife resources of the state being held in trust for all ? What is the State doing to protect the fish and wildlife resources for ALL of the citizens of Washington? Much less the future inheritence of the generations to come. Even less still the health of the region as a whole.

    What is the State of Washington doing to manage the entire ecosystem as a whole, rather than in so many broken parts?

    This is what I mean by management reflecting the social circumstances and politics of the region. This is how these legislators are spending the citizen's tax dollars: by promoting continued harvest of the depleted marine and riverine fisheries resources of this state with no regard for the long term devastation to all of the related organisims involved. All they mention is harvest and their view of the law as it supports that goal.



    Let them know where you stand. They signed it. And if you do a little work at it you can find their addresses here in Washington. A real letter to their home offices, in their Home Districts in Washington State, might be a wake up call. (Letters to Washington D.C. take several weeks to over a month to clear security).
    Keep it local. That's where the votes are. Im letting them know where my vote is.

    "Healthy Runs of Fish"...my ass!

    :reallymad
     
  16. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    To save yourself the trouble of looking up e-mail addresses, I have looked a few up for you. E-mails are counted and often responded to with a letter.

    You need only write a few sentences. Just let them know where you stand.

    Commission@dfw.wa.gov; buck_ji@leg.wa.gov; sump_ro@leg.wa.gov; blake_br@leg.wa.gov; schoesle_ma@leg.wa.gov; pearson_ki@leg.wa.gov; kessler_ly@leg.wa.gov; orcutt_ed@leg.wa.gov; armstron_mi@leg.wa.gov; hatfield_br@leg.wa.gov; hinkle_bi@leg.wa.gov; sheldon_be@leg.wa.gov; morton_bo@leg.wa.gov; hewitt_mi@leg.wa.gov; hargrove_ji@leg.wa.gov; doumit_ma@leg.wa.gov; honeyfor_ji@leg.wa.gov; mccaslin_bo@leg.wa.gov

    Writing more than once is also effective. Letters, e-mails and a personal appearence will count.

    Bob, the I'll be damned if they are going to just piss these fish away.:reallymad
     
  17. Brian Simonseth

    Brian Simonseth Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Skagit, Stillaguamish mostly
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Thanks, Bob L.

    I have nothing going on tonight so here goes a few more E-mails!

    Remember August 28th!;)
     
  18. firedog

    firedog Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Media:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Here is a link to a form letter that can be used to voice your support of continuing the moratorium. Would be better to write your own letters but this is better than nothing.

    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/wdfwmoratorium.htm
     
  19. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    Yes, you might be right in a perfect world. But any response, even form letters, are counted and weighed as to their political ramification ( their extended meaning).

    What does it take to tap a few keys? What good will you do? All I know is that if the wild fish are driven into oblivion, I will not be able to say, "Well, I did nothing."

    Bob, the Just tryin' to sleep at night.:thumb
     
  20. Luv2flyfish

    Luv2flyfish Another Flyfisherman

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Western WA, US.
    WDFW hearing on the 2yr steelhead retention morator...

    I dont think I was too late. Thanks for posting that laundry list of email addresses Bob L. I typed up a good letter and sent to each one of them. I also made it known to them that I was taking my time while serving all of them in Iraq to express my views.
     

Share This Page