Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Do you like fishing for searun cutthroat?

5K views 70 replies 26 participants last post by  Mark Mercer 
#1 ·
If you do and would like to protect your opportunities to do so in the future, please consider reading this thread.
In particular, pay attention to page 9.
http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com...hinook-resource-management-plan.136174/page-9

I didn't want the information to get buried in the chinook thread, so this is an opportunity to bump it to the top.
Even if you don't fish for salmon in Puget Sound, this should be something you should be paying attention to.

I don't want to come off like a fear monger, but this is the reality of our fisheries today.

I'm sure many older members here never imagined the day the Stilly and Skagit would be closed to fishing for cutthroat (gamefish) due to salmon season setting regulations.

Well guess what, I'm sure there are those here that think the sound will never close to fishing for gamefish, myself included.
If they can close the Stilly and Skagit, why couldn't they close the sound as well to gamefish as part of the fallout from the new chinook management plan?

There is an important vote taking place on Feb 2nd.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/agenda_feb0218.html
I encourage you to send an email to the WDFW commision to vote yes to convert the NOF Policy to a WAC.
Commission@dfw.wa.gov

Thanks,
SF
 
See less See more
#35 ·
Another sample letter to the commission via Baywolf.
Two more days to submit your comments.


Commissioners, We have seen example after example of a "culture of secrecy" within the Department. Now is the time for you to begin to correct this issue which is damaging to public confidence and trust in WDFW. I strongly encourage you to VOTE YES on the petition to convert the North of Falcon policy to a Rule. This is a very important first step for the Commission to repair the damage done to public trust.
 
#44 ·
Regarding a Public Records Request, WDFW has their own public records request page: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/

Note there a ton of Exemptions: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/

I noticed that the 10 year Puget Sound Chinook Plan was a "mediation" with a federal judge which conveniently falls under the "mediation exemption."

WDFW strategically organizes their behaviour to fall under one of the exemptions to keep the public in the dark.
 
#42 ·
Others with more complete info can chime in - but it basically boils down to the tribes claiming that their status as "Sovereign Nations" makes them exempt from WA laws that require transparency. It doesn't appear as though any state entity is particularly eager to challenge the said exemptions.

I think that the State could largely circumvent these restrictions by publishing their opening positions prior to the NOF process, and providing an updated daily ledger of the modifications that they've agreed to as part of the negotiating process. Even without cameras, transcripts, etc - the public could do the math and see precisely what concessions they'd made and infer what they got in return. Not full transparency, but light-years better than what we've got now.
 
#47 ·
but it basically boils down to the tribes claiming that their status as "Sovereign Nations" makes them exempt from WA laws that require transparency.
It's not simply a claim but a legal precedent set by multiple Supreme Court rulings and the US Constitution. I think many people get hung up on the "nation" wording, it's easiest to think of tribes as their own states.

So when people demand that state agencies regulate the tribes it's a non-starter as they don't have the legal authority to do so.

I bring this up as I think it's important that people focus their efforts on things the state can do and avoid wasting time and energy on things the state has no legal authority to do.

And with respect to the Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon the state was legally obligated to keep the court mediated negotiations confidential, once again not something the WDFW could really control as both the tribes and federal government requested it. I think it's important to separate this issue from NOF transparency.

That said my letter was sent.
 
#45 ·
You could certainly do a public records request.
It seems a simple solution to the NOF transperancy issue would be to live stream video of the negotiations.
The tribes oppose any in person public input during the negotiations. They very likely would oppose live video streaming as well.

As of right now, everything is done secretly. We have no idea how WDFW is representing our interests in the negotiations.
What are they giving up, what are they asking for? The same can be said for the tribes.
Basically, if they come to an agreement, we get an announcement and here are your seasons. Live with it.
SF
 
#46 ·
Anyone reached out to local/outdoor radio shows? I don't even know who the host is - but I think that there's at least one show with an audience large enough to stay on the air. Seems like that'd be a way to drum up some more support for the petition if it hasn't been done already. Probably too late to get anything on air, but the show might have a social media account/wep-page they could use to get the message out.
 
#48 ·
Posted a message on the "Washington Saltwater" group on FB and sent a FB message to whoever runs the NW Sportsman feed asking them to review the info in Baywolf's piscatorialpursuits thread and send messages to the commission and/or get the word out to their readers....
 
#50 ·
Just an FYI.
There will be a public comment period coming up in regards to the NOF negotiations.
Last year it took place in early March.
You’ll be able to express what you’d like to see in regards to our upcoming salmon seasons.

I’ll post a link once it shows up on the NOF WDFW website page.
SF
 
#53 ·
It was my understanding the tribes and federal government requested the mediated negotiations and confidentiality. Do you have reliable sources to the contrary?

"The updated plan was developed by the co-managers through court-mediated negotiations - requested by the tribes and the federal government - that began earlier this year. As requested by the tribes and federal government, the negotiations took place under a confidential court process, which limited participation to representatives of the federal government, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and tribal co-managers."
https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/chinook/
 
#60 ·
You are correct on all accounts except that those court orders do not exclude the WDFW commission. The director and his immediate staff neglected to notify and make the commission aware of the creation of the management plan. That falls squarely on WDFW management and has nothing to do with the tribes or the feds. Except it my have been suggest by those parties but had no legal standing.
 
#58 ·
Folks must not remember the fiasco of 2016 when the State did try to get its own ESA coverage. The tribes due to the federal connection via BIA money were able to get their permit within weeks while the non-treaty fishers sat on the beach (including those that fish places like Lake Washington). NOAA basically changed the rules and if the State could get its permit it take at least a couple years. In addition such a permit would be require that any non-treaty fishery would have to be structured to assure that the tribes would be assured full access of their share. In short the whole thing was a cluster. The state essentially played high stake poker and lost big time. Bottom line if we are going to salmon fish the best chance for any sort of stable fisheries will be under a joint co-manager permit.

The whole may well mute; without some serious dedication to successful habitat restoration there will be continued more and more restrictive allowed impacts and populations decline.

Curt
 
#61 ·
Folks must not remember the fiasco of 2016 when the State did try to get its own ESA coverage. The tribes due to the federal connection via BIA money were able to get their permit within weeks while the non-treaty fishers sat on the beach (including those that fish places like Lake Washington). NOAA basically changed the rules and if the State could get its permit it take at least a couple years. In addition such a permit would be require that any non-treaty fishery would have to be structured to assure that the tribes would be assured full access of their share. In short the whole thing was a cluster. The state essentially played high stake poker and lost big time. Bottom line if we are going to salmon fish the best chance for any sort of stable fisheries will be under a joint co-manager permit.

The whole may well mute; without some serious dedication to successful habitat restoration there will be continued more and more restrictive allowed impacts and populations decline.

Curt
I completely agree with you. However, many people and myself would have rather forgone our opportunity to fish salmon in Puget Sound during 2016 and 2017 if that meant the WDFW obtaining there own permit. At the same time that would have given the tribes a huge PR black eye. Which had started and I believe brought the tribes back to the table in 2016. I wish WDFW would have held the course and pursued there own permit while letting the tribes be exposed as less than the ultimate Stewards of the land.
 
#62 ·
Jonathan -
The fly in that 2 year shut down is the requirement to not exceed more than 50% of the impacts on any one stock. At the time the non-treaty fishers were taking about 60% of the mid-Hood Canal Chinook thus requiring a 20% reduction in mixed stock catches in Puget Sound in at least all areas north of MA 11. To come close to achieving the portion of the NT catch in the pass the significant portion of the catch would have to come from gill nets. In additional at the time the feds would not guarantee a permit within 2 years or ever.

Not any easy solutions
 
#63 ·
At the time the feds advertised 18 months for our own permit. How accurate that would have been your guess is as good as mine. Yes you are correct that the tribes would have claimed forgone opportunity. Not ideal obviously but would have given rec anglers and NI commercial fisherman a huge platform to educate the general voting public about the reality of our fisheries and how our co managers do not selectively harvest chinook. Some of which are ESA listed.

It would have been terrible in the short term but could have helped emensly in the long term.

By the way I greatly respect your contributions and look up to you as an exceptionally knowledgeable person in regards to all things Puget Sound.
 
#65 ·
Multiple emails have been sent.
I tried to keep them short and to the point, in the hope that they would actually be read by someone in the hope of having an impact.

Like many here, I've been fishing Searuns (and Salmon) for many decades.
It's a real shame to see rivers completely closed to fishing (even for C&R Searun Cutthroat) all in the hope that salmon may someday recover.

Keep emailing...




.
 
#67 ·
Seattlee -
It was my understanding that there was significant doubt that the State would be able to get a go a lone permit.

Regardless (and this is very much only my personal opinion) it is key that the co-managers get on the same page, develop, submit and get approved a PS Chinook harvest plan that is responsive to the needs of the listed Chinook and establish a path towards stable fisheries. Given the continued decline of those listed Chinook and what appears to a growing concern with wild coho getting both sides of the co-manager will be key to any potential for long term fisheries working together will be key. The need is for a solid co-manager position of advocating for meaningful efforts in reversing the continuing decline in Chinook abundance. The need is for specific prescription for restoration actions basin by basin addressing the most critical short term limiting factors to turn around the population declines. I would hope to see a two prong co-manager approach of challenging that habitat managers step up to the plate and match what the gains made in the harvest arena and at the same time push hard for NMFS to grow a "pair" by pushing for significant improves in key habitats.

I realize that the above is likely pie in the Sky but don't really see any other path forward. If our grandkids are going to enough anything close to the fishing we have enjoyed that effort has to be success. Otherwise we all will be sitting on the beach as we watch the resource sink to extinction.

Curt
 
#68 ·
Thanks for those thoughts Curt. I agree that co-management is ideal. I want the Tribes to get every bit of their 50%! I just think that the co-management balance has been pushed way too far (with the Tribes getting quite a bit more than 50%) and that the WDFW getting their own permit would be a way to get back to a more balanced co-management agreement with the Tribes.
 
#69 ·
There is SOO much that is going on and details about our fight for transparency, I apologize that I cannot provide a detailed account of everything on this forum. We have letters from Lorraine Loomis and Unsworth, emails from AAG Mike Grossman and Ron Warren, it is, and has been a long and arduous fight. I would be happy to address any specific questions through email if you have any. OpenNOF@gmail.com. Also, for those that may not have them, here is a couple of links. One to our citizen petition which was started last year, and one to our facebook page. We VERY MUCH appreciate all your support and more importantly the education you are providing to the citizen's of our community and our state. The more they see the truth, the more concerned and involved in positive change they will become. THANK YOU!!

https://www.change.org/p/open-the-w...m_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

https://www.facebook.com/OpenNorthofFalcon/
 
#70 ·
Baywolf,

Thanks for all your efforts to help folks better understand all the issues involved with and effecting our fisheries and their management.
As someone who is not as well versed in all of this, I've learned a lot from your posts on various boards over the past few years.
SF
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top