An interesting view of the world by the WDFW

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ChrisC, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    809
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Maybe, but they'd be concentrating on more (spending more money on) enforcement...sportfishing enforcement.
     
  2. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Olympia
    You have no idea how his works do you.
     
  3. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    809
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Don't mean to start a war, nor do I wish to denigrate any of the agencies mentioned. Just hope we can figure this out. Currently all federal income tax payers and BPA ratepayers are funding an approximate doubleing of the catch for commercial salmon fishing (hatcheries are subsidies).

    With so many "interested parties" demanding their due it can't happen. The Magnuson act http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/ provided money to buy out commerical fishing interests. Commercial fisheries take the wagon-load... aparently they didn't buyout enough of them. How much money would it take to buy out all commercial gillnetting in the Columbia and off the Washington coast? I've no idea about the numbers ($) but think BPA's mandate for spending on fish & wildlife restoration should maximize this option...over the years it gets big!

    And, the tribes must be convinced it is in their best interest to manage for wild fish wherever possible and harvest hatchery fish whenever possible.

    The agenda needs an update!
     
  4. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    809
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Nope...and it doesn't work.
     
  5. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Olympia
    Thank you for taking this back into the realm of talking policy. I'm serious. Thank you.

    The columbia is all about politics, and no one really cares about the fish. There are bigger drivers. It's not commercial fishing that's driving policy in the basin. It's about farming...thats my humble opinion. It's about access to water and global markets. The woudn't have any need to mitigate if it weren't for the dams. I would be suprised if we still had the dams were it not for farming. The hydropower would be cheap to replace--especially given the glut of domestically produced gas. But, it would be more expensive to transport grain and relocate pump stations. Society as a whole would benefit from dam removal (see Rand Institute report). But farmers would take a hit. Combine that with the institutional culture in the Corps, Bureau of Reclaimation, and the BPA. Not going to happen. Fish play a small role in restricting what can be done, as well as requiring some mitigation. But it's not about the fish. Commercial fishing/tribes are just the scrappiest fighters when it comes to picking up the scraps that get tossed to us by the mitigation. These fights do, however, serve to obscure the real issues--the dams. But that's really the point isn't it. We think it's a fish war because we love fish.

    Now I'm really just arguing for the sake of arguing.
     
    Jeff Sawyer likes this.
  6. Cruik

    Cruik Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    385
    The dam argument is a bit more complex than I feel equipped to discuss, but I agree the policy statement is pretty poorly written. Using the word 'conservative' for the coastal management plan is really a poor choice. I'm sure they meant 'conservative' to refer to the fact that it is not as extreme as the Puget Sound plan in terms of restrictions. However, 'conservative' to many people might refer to a plan more centered on species conservation, which is not the case.
     
  7. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    809
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    I
    Don't disagree with anything you've said...except for mitigation, it's never worked and is (was) the catch-word for justifying mistakes and allowing them to continue...and I think we all know that nothing regarding anadromous PNW fisheries has ever been successfully mitigated! It's a fallacy! Chinook, sockeye and steelhead deal pretty well with dams...other anadromous species less so...but dams provide a ton of benefit, I'm not anti dams (except for some)...that's another story. Farming shouldn't have to be effected, just drop the irrigation in-take levels, the Columbia's a big river! Options exist for improvement but the same old, same old justifications and excuses continue to win the day...Why? Politics is the problem and politics never solves anything!!
     
  8. Ringlee

    Ringlee Doesn't care how you fish Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Somewhere you don't know about, WA
    Let me rephrase your sentence to HATCHERY Chinook, sockeye, and steelhead deal pretty well with dams...
     
  9. papafsh

    papafsh Piscatorial predilection

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    212
    Location:
    Camano Island, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    If it were not for farming we wouldn't have much in the way of food, now would we?
    I'd be supprised if we could even survive without food, but then that's just me.

    LB
     
  10. Steffan Brown

    Steffan Brown ...

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I'm curious why hatchery fish deal with dams better than native fish. I don't want to hijack the thread, so please feel free to PM me if necessary.
     
  11. Ringlee

    Ringlee Doesn't care how you fish Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Somewhere you don't know about, WA
    It's sheer numbers of releases and artificial rearing compared to a finite amount of wild fish taking the same journey, despite being better fit and adapted to negotiate the challenges on the Columbia. Essentially, "salmon without rivers" by mitigating the lost habitat above the dams by flooding the river with hatchery fish.
     
  12. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Olympia
    It's about it being expensive (only to the farmers) to cmake a break from the status quo. I wasn't sugesting that they give up all of their water rights or not send their crops to market. Just that they don't want to change the way things work in the basin. If you look at the balance sheets (again if anyone hasn't seen the Rand Institute report google "rand institute snake river dams"), it's farmers who would have to change what thier doing. Follow the money--find the road block.

    BTW...Americans would do well to eat less.

    Back to the main subject (the columbia isn't really about WDFW)

    NEWS RELEASE
    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
    April 26, 2012
    Contact: Charmane Ashbrook, (360) 902-2672

    Public invited to propose
    changes to recreational fisheries

    OLYMPIA – People with ideas about how to improve state sportfishing rules can submit their proposals to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) through June 15.
    Only those proposals that are necessary for resource conservation or provide a significant recreational benefit should be submitted to WDFW, due to a moratorium issued by the Governor’s office on non-critical rule making.
    Craig Burley, fish program manager for WDFW, said people who would like to submit a proposal can use a new online form available on the department’s website.
    “We are looking to improve the rule proposal process and make it more user-friendly with this online form,” Burley said.
    The form, as well as information about the sportfishing rule change process, can be found athttp://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/. A printed copy of the rule change process and proposal form may be obtained by calling (360) 902-2700.
    Sportfishing rule changes developed through this process will be available for public review and comment in early September. The final opportunity to submit written comments to WDFW on those proposals will be Dec. 15.
    The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a nine-member citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, is scheduled to receive a briefing on the rule proposals during its December public meeting in Olympia.
    The public also will have an opportunity to provide comment on the proposed rule changes during the commission's January 2013 meeting. The commission will take final action on the 2013-14 sportfishing rule changes during a public meeting in February 2013.

    I think we should start a new thread to help craft a coherent message to send to DFW. It will help if a lot of people are mad about the same thing/use similar language.
     
    Tyler Sadowski likes this.
  13. ChrisC

    ChrisC Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    .
    Derek - appreciate you highlighting this news release.

    Unfortunately, the new web form reflects not only their tone deafness with regard to public comment, but it also just makes it more efficient for WDFW and their commission to rebute and ignore public comment and testimony. Other board members have said this - they been an active participant over the years and submitted comments, attended WDFW public hearings - only to be repeatedly ignored and feel that the entire process is only for show. Now I completely understand and agree with my participation in the process. What a collective waste of resources and our time, with little in terms of tangible results (steelhead recovery or recreational opportunity).

    As a counter example to this process, California also has Endangered Species Act designation of their North Coast steelhead as "Threatened" but still allows recreational fishing with the typical regulation as "Oct. 1 through Mar. 31. Only barbless hooks may be used" (with no wild retention). This regulation is in place for many coastal rivers with runs at a fraction of those recently closed across Puget Sound. No lengthy rule making process with bureaucratic infrastructure overhead, but simplicity that enables recreational opportunity but more importantly, an engaged constituency that is more likely to step up and respond to habitat destruction threats. The last point is where I think WDFW is entirely clueless and lacks a long term perspective - by closing key PS steelhead fisheries, it will take less than a generation for people to forget and actively care about something that once was a precious resource and experience that individuals wanted to share with their friends, sons and daughters. We all know that WDFW lacks the broader authority to regulate and address broader habitat threats and yet the agency also lacks the foresight and creative energy to enable a constituency (of those who care about steelhead) to survive. Why not just eliminate what we have in development restrictions, runoff protection since these regulations protect something that exists only on paper?

    With its 9-member commission (why do you need 9 members other than to satisfy various interests) appointed by the governor, who then appoints the director, WDFW is an agency that is unfortunately, in practice, designed for appeasement and making poor compromises. Other than being accountable to the governor, the agency is free to do as it pleases - we can't vote out the director or its commission members.

    While I will again participate in public comment, I now believe that we will have a bigger impact by asking legislators to reconsider an earlier legislative proposal to integrate WDFW into the Department of Natural Resources. One only needs to compare DNR's news releases (and their budget) to WDFW's and conclude which agency has broader impact and political clout:
    http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Pages/News.aspx
    http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
    Furthermore, with the head of DNR being an elected official, he or she at least has a fair degree of accountability to the public. The last commissioner was voted out, for example, due in part to the perception that he lacked oversight of logging practices that ultimately resulted in massive slides and flooding along I-5. Additionally, the current commissioner, Goldmark has demonstrated the audacity to successfully force the attorney general, McKenna, to represent the department to help protect its public land holdings:
    http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/News/Pages/2011_09_01_attygen_nr.aspx

    I have yet to see (and do not ever expect to) anything in this regard from WDFW.
     
    Dehlan G likes this.
  14. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Location:
    The Salt
    correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the director appointed by the commission and not directly by the governor?

    this doesn't remove politics entirely from the process, but minimizes it a bit which was the reason behind the referendum that passed overwhelmingly removing the power of the governor to appoint wdfw's director.

    other than that i pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
     
  15. ChrisC

    ChrisC Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    .
    Thanks - for catching that. Corrected.