[Stonefish]

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.
[email protected]

Thanks,
SF

 

[Bob Smith]

Well said Brian...

 

[Jonathan Tachell]

This is very true and NOF and the 10 year Puget sound chinook management plan will effect all fisheries from area 5 to 13. This includes game fish in the salt and rivers as well.

 

[Smalma]

SF -
As you told us Skagit/Stillaguamish cutthroat fishers a year ago if heaven forbid the sound does close for fishing for game fish you can always find another fishery!

I hear that WDFW is still planting catchables in a wide variety of lakes; or does it make a difference whose ox is being gored?

That said I continue to fight for all of our game fish opportunities; in fact putting the final details together for another lengthy email. In addition will be providing input to modify WDFW commission policy 3608 to include game fish and provide the priority that they deserve.

Curt

 

[Stonefish]

SF -
As you told us Skagit/Stillaguamish cutthroat fishers a year ago if heaven forbid the sound does close for fishing for game fish you can always find another fishery!

I hear that WDFW is still planting catchables in a wide variety of lakes; or does it make a difference whose ox is being gored?

That said I continue to fight for all of our game fish opportunities; in fact putting the final details together for another length email. In addition will be providing input to modify WDFW commission policy 3608 to include game fish and provide the priority that they deserve.

Curt

Curt,
Thanks for quoting me.
I did indeed say that. I still feel the same way today.
It isn't like I haven't ever fished either of those rivers before for cutthroat.

If the sound does close for fishing, I'll continue to fish as much and at the same pace I currently do.
It may not be the fishing I prefer to do, but I'll be fishing none the less.
I will not let WDFW kill my desire to fish.

Last year when the Skagit and Stilly closed to searun fishing, did you continue to fish or sit on the sidelines?
If you did the latter, then WDFW already won the battle with you.

I think I've said on numerous occasions that I expressed hope you get your searun seasons back on your two favorite rivers as well as supporting OS.

Thanks for your support and input.
SF

 

[mtnwrkr]

Thanks for sharing Brian. Email sent.

 

[Thrasybulus]

SF -
As you told us Skagit/Stillaguamish cutthroat fishers a year ago if heaven forbid the sound does close for fishing for game fish you can always find another fishery!

I hear that WDFW is still planting catchables in a wide variety of lakes; or does it make a difference whose ox is being gored?
Curt

Way to rally the troops Curt! Thanks for the rabbit punch. You are better than this.

 

[Nick Clayton]

SF -
As you told us Skagit/Stillaguamish cutthroat fishers a year ago if heaven forbid the sound does close for fishing for game fish you can always find another fishery!

I hear that WDFW is still planting catchables in a wide variety of lakes; or does it make a difference whose ox is being gored?

That said I continue to fight for all of our game fish opportunities; in fact putting the final details together for another length email. In addition will be providing input to modify WDFW commission policy 3608 to include game fish and provide the priority that they deserve.

Curt

Not the type of response I would expect from someone so respected and well versed in the many issues facing our fisheries.

Sounds just like every political discussion these days... "Oh yeah but what about when Obama said this...." "Oh sure you say that now but you didn't feel that way when Hillary did....."

If anyone on this forum is a model for how to handle themselves and discuss fishing related topics without getting emotional or sling mud, it's SF. I watched him fight tooth and nail in 2015, sending emails and organizing similar threads to bring these issues to the attention of folks who may not be aware. Now here he is again, presenting information without stirring the pot unnecessarily. This forum needs more people of like SF, and less responses like yours above.

One thing I know about SF, he walks the walk. If Puget Sound shut down tomorrow for all fishing, I know for a fact he would shift gears and find a new fishery to focus his time, efforts, and support on. That's a rare thing around here IMO. Most guys would just piss and moan and sit on their couch.

Now is not the time for finger pointing and "I told you so".

Back to the OP...... Heading to fire off another email now.

 

[Smalma]

SF/DimeBrite/Nick-

While my post here on this thread may not have been my finest moment it was done with considerable thought. The point being if we all wait until it is our pet fishery that is under attack we will see the our preferred opportunities disappearing. Our best hope is our collective power however we continually negate that power by our own inactions and apathy.

It is not a question of whether there are alternative fishing opportunities; we will always have perch and carp but rather are we collectively willing to fight for those fish and fisheries that we most value even if threats to those opportunities may not too close to "home".

I continue to fish though not nearly as much this past year as normal. While my favorite fisheries were closed my lack of fishing may have been as much due to the several hundred hours I have spend in the last 12months advocating for our fish and fishing. Heck have spend way over 100 hours on the 10 year Chinook plan reference at the start of this thread and expect to continue to invest substantial amounts of time on behalf of those issues the next few months. Hopefully this spring this thread will stir up enough interest that during various NOF meetings I will not be the only one advocating for our game fish fisheries (and yes my advocacy included that in the salt).

Curt

 

[Stonefish]

Curt,

While some may be more public in their involvement in fighting for our fisheries. I haven’t been but that doesn’t mean I’ve been silent in the past expressing my opinions to those I think need to hear them.

I felt this was a good time to be more public as some may not understand how salmon management agreements and seasons might affect their ability to fish salmon in the sound as well as gamefish, both in the sound and rivers.

You may think I’m a one trick pony and only enjoy fishing the salt, but I enjoy all types of fishing with both gear and fly. I do love fishing the sound the most though.
My point about finding other fisheries was just that.
You can fish the opportunities that are available or sit on the sidelines and mope about what you can’t fish.
There are still species of fish in this state I haven’t caught and they are open for fishing.
If the sound is closed, I plan to fish them.

Thanks again for your input and work supporting our fisheries.
SF

 

[DeadandBloated]

Smalma and Stonefish are both gems of the WFF. These guys both obviously care immensely. They addressed each message to each other...not us all. No one contributes more pure scientific knowledge than Smalma, his opinion is big. Stonefish has as much knowledge as anyone, on many matters in a wide spectrum of topics on here, you do not get that without many decades on the water and learning a vast amount he shares, luckily, for us all..his opinion is big. Appreciate their opinions greatly.

I feel those guys are both champs with the causes and fight the same battles for the betterment of fisheries, in their ways.
Let's let two of the most level headed guys have their conversation, let's give them both full respect, no one on the board deserves it more, SG is on that short list, too, IMHO.

Thank you to those two gentlemen for caring and all they do!

 

[Kfish]

Thank you Brian, I missed the other thread. Will be emailing.

Lou

 

[Smalma]

SF -
By now it should be clear to all that game fish seasons on PS anadromous waters have now become part of the North of Falcon process. As such I feel strongly that WDFW's commission policy C-3608 (NOF policy) has to be modified to also address game issues. Establishing a priority for those fishing; including using minimal incidental salmon impacts to support those fisheries.

This business of closing game fish seasons to reduce salmon impacts (driven by tribal concerns) has been gaining momentum the last two years. Given the current situation in the PS salmon management world it may be difficult reverse that trend. Not only do we have the continued declining ESA listed PS Chinook and the NMFS predictable response in any new Chinook harvest plan I fully expect to see 1 or more of the key wild managed coho stocks (and there are only 5) to declared either "Subjected to Overfishing" (requiring that measures must be put in place to end overfishing) or "Overfished" (a rebuilding plan must be developed to rebuild the population to sustained levels).

While we were never promised life would be easy I encourage everyone that cares about fishing for sea-run cutthroat or any other game fish in our anadromous waters get involved and let the decision makers (the Commission and directors office) know that you value those fish and fisheries. Would be appropriate to stress the uniqueness, diversity and high quality of those game fish fisheries which are deserving of a high priority at both the management and policy level!

Curt

 

[wanative]

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.
[email protected]

Thanks,
SF

I do like to fish for SRC and damn near everything else that swims in Washington State.
Thank you for the work you do to conserve and perpetuate our much maligned and failing sport fisheries.
My email has been sent to the commission.
Fred

 

[Kfish]

@SeattleFarq @Philonius

Lou

 

[mtskibum16]

Email sent. Thanks Brian.

 

[holtad]

I do like to fish for SRC and damn near everything else that swims in Washington State.
Thank you for the work you do to conserve and perpetuate our much maligned and failing sport fisheries.
My email has been sent to the commission.
Fred

I second this. Email also sent (a while back).

 

[Stonefish]

Thanks to all who took the time to submit emails and comments.
The vote is on Friday.
There is still time to express your opinions to the commission regarding NOF, cutthroat (gamefish) fishing, the chinook management agreement etc.
SF

 

[Jonathan Tachell]

Thank you Stonefish and everyone that has taken the time to write the commission. This is a very important and pivotal time in how our Puget Sound fisheries will be managed going forward. If you have not emailed the commission yet please do so before Feb 2nd and if you have consider sending another email. Thank you again to all that have gotten involved.

 

[JayB]

I'd like my letter to be as convincing as possible, so I want to sound like I have at least a vaguely accurate idea of the rationale behind the move that we are supporting before I complete a letter.

I understand that the current NOF process is a sham because the WDFW lacks both the capacity and (evidently) the will to insure that the impacts harvest restrictions are born equally by tribal and non-tribal fishermen.

I also understand that the goal is to change whatever it is the governs WDFW's involvement in the NOF process from whatever it is currently (?) to a Washington Administrative Code. It's not clear to me what it is that governs the WDFW process now, or precisely how changing it to a WAC will help. I'm sure that there's a good explanation out there - I just don't have a clear understanding of exactly what that is.

Help me fill in the blanks in my letter so that it sounds like I sound at least half-way informed. Thanks!

"Dear WDFW Commission Members:

I am writing this letter to ask the the WDFW commission uses the authority granted it in 1995 under the terms of Referendum 45 convert the _________ that currently governs the WDFWs participation in the North of Falcon process to a Washington Administrative Code.

It has become clear that the terms of the ________ have rendered the WDFW incapable of fulfilling its obligation to preserve the harvest and angling opportunities guaranteed to non-tribal fishermen under the terms of the 1974 Boldt Ruling.

More specifically, the lack of transparency in NOF negotiations has resulted in the WDFW agreeing to restrictions on non-tribal angling that have no defensible basis in a scientifically sound conservation policy. In particular, this has resulted in the wholesale elimination of gamefishing opportunities in order to mitigate impacts on salmon that are both negligible and wildly implausible.

The recent closure of the entire Stillaguamish and Skagit river systems to even to catch-and-release fly-fishing for sea-run cutthroat trout, in order to mitigate a hypothetical impact on less than a dozen salmon is the latest and most egregious example of such restrictions.

The odds of an angler pursuing sea-run cuttroat with light fly-fishing tackle actually intercepting returning salmon in these river systems are exceptionally low. The odds of actually landing the fish, much less harming it in the process are at least an order of magnitude lower. Absurd and unscientific restrictions of this kind would never persist in a transparent process that granted citizens the right to review and comment upon proposed conservation measures before they are implemented.

In light of the impending___(formal/official name for whatever rule/process proposed to protect PS chinook populations), it is vitally important that citizens have the opportunity to review and comment on conservation proposals before they are implemented. Failure to do so will result in more travesties like the Stillaguamish/Skagit closure referenced above. The cumulative effect of restrictions will be a demoralized and disengaged population of non-tribal anglers that have lost faith in the capacity of the WDFW to represent them, and the desire to purchase the licenses that sustain the agency.

Consequently, I am asking you to vote in favor changing the current ______ that governs the WDFW's involvement in the NOF process to a WAC when the matter comes up for a vote.

Thank-you for your time and consideration, and thank your for your service on the WDFW commission.

Best Regards-"