IMPORTANT SKAGIT ACTION NEEDED

Jason Decker

Active Member
i saw this on FB and due to the hearing being held Feb 2, we don't have much time to act, please make an effort to help. As this is a call then decision, there is no time for public input or comments so this is the best way (from what i've heard) I have very limited personal knowledge of this, anyone else with more details can add to this thread!

FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING via CONFERENCE CALL
February 2, 2018


https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/agenda_feb0218.html

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2018
8:30 A.M.


A. Petition – Convert North of Falcon Policy to Rule - Decision
The Commission will be briefed and consider a petition filed regarding converting the North of Falcon Policy C-3608 into a rule.

Please EMAIL: [email protected]

Message:
I respectfully ask you to APPROVE the conversion of the North of Falcon Policy C-3608 to a Rule (Washington Administrative Code)

Signed,
JD
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
WFF Supporter
It's good that you emailed the Commission, but this issue is not about the Skagit specifically. It's about WDFW conducting its fish management decision making transparently.
 

Jake Dogfish

Active Member
If they make this a rule, it should be good for conservation. Less tweaking and bending the numbers to allow fisheries to occur.
It also will make it harder to reach a deal.
 

Jason Decker

Active Member
It's good that you emailed the Commission, but this issue is not about the Skagit specifically. It's about WDFW conducting its fish management decision making transparently.
thanks Salmo g, you obviously have a better understanding on this. What do you think is the best result from this rule change?
we have 3 basic options......Support it, Against it, do nothing........ this rule change, along with the resignation of the WDFW Director, risk of his replacement by the idiot guy who found the Atlantic Salmon risk was ok........ seems like a pivotal moment for us sport fishermen
 

Jason Decker

Active Member
thanks Salmo g, you obviously have a better understanding on this. What do you think is the best result from this rule change?
we have 3 basic options......Support it, Against it, do nothing........ this rule change, along with the resignation of the WDFW Director, risk of his replacement by the idiot guy who approved the Atlantic Salmon risk was ok........ seems like a pivotal moment for us sport fishermen
 

Smalma

Active Member
Jason -

In my opinion policy C-3608 modification is of the highest importance. That modification needs to expand the species covered by the policy to include game fish. It needs make retaining those game fish seasons (whether in the salt or freshwater) a high priority. That can be done by recognizing that value of those fisheries as well as setting aside some of the allowed impacts to support those fisheries.

The recent game fish closure given the low impacts during those fisheries has been unacceptable.

Curt
 

Jason Decker

Active Member
Jason -

In my opinion policy C-3608 modification is of the highest importance. That modification needs to expand the species covered by the policy to include game fish. It needs make retaining those game fish seasons (whether in the salt or freshwater) a high priority. That can be done by recognizing that value of those fisheries as well as setting aside some of the allowed impacts to support those fisheries.

The recent game fish closure given the low impacts during those fisheries has been unacceptable.

Curt

Thanks for the info Curt!
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top