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

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

  1. 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...
     
  2. 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
     
  3. miyawaki

    miyawaki Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,170
    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
     
  4. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
  5. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,349
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    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
     
  6. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
  7. 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!;)
     
  8. firedog

    firedog Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    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
     
  9. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Bert Kinghorn

    Bert Kinghorn Formerly "nextcast"

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    Location of Kitsap Conference Center?

    :confused: Could someone who knows Bremerton please confirm that the meeting location is walking distance from the ferry landing?
     
  12. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    I'm going to use www.mapquest.com to find my way to the meeting. The bad thing is that Mapquest avoids ferries as if they didn't exist when they draw the map for you. The will use Gallopin Gurtie no doubt. But I'll let you know if I can fiind out anything.

    Shoot, I might even pick you up at the ferry if it's too far to walk. We need every mouth--that's for sure.

    Bob, the I'll be there, OK? :beer2:
     
  13. Bert Kinghorn

    Bert Kinghorn Formerly "nextcast"

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    Thanks!

    Thank you, Bob. The directions I got off the web showed the center to be just to the North of the ferry landing and very close. I would welcome confirmation though.

    Either way, I look forward to meeting you and many others. Thanks again.
     
  14. alpinetrout

    alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    207
    Location:
    Hiding in your closet
  15. Southsound

    Southsound Steve Cole - Nisqually and Adjacent Environs

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    South Puget Sound (again!), WA, USA
    Comments Submitted Along with A Suggested Option...

    Hey All...

    I just got my comments submitted to the Commission in support of continuing the "no kill" ban for wild steelhead. I also asked them to consider creating an "impact fund" and to make the money available to businesses that can demonstrate a decline in bookings, reservations, meals served, etc due to clients staying away because they can't keep a fish. I suggested raising the price of angling licenses temporarily to feed the impact fund. What do other folks think of this idea? In my mind, it kind of puts the onus on the OP communities to demonstrate being harmed to the extent they claim they would be. If they can't show a decline in business, then they would not get compensation from the impact fund. And if there was any money left in the fund after the two years are passed, they could make grants for habitat restoration and other such projects with it.

    See you all on Saturday.

    Be Well

    Steve Cole (aka Southsound)