The Secretly Crafted Ten Year Chinook Salmon Harvest Management Plan

[GregE]

Ron Garner is the president of Puget Sound Anglers and always an advocate for fair share for sport anglers.  Here's a letter he has posted on FaceBook calling for support action by Us.  A major meeting in Ridgefield  WA ( N of Vancouver ) on Jan 19 will discuss this

https://gem.godaddy.com/s/4f7167?o=fm

G

[HemiGTX]

Law abiding, tax-paying Americans have more to lose by getting arrested than some other groups.

[BayWolf]

Today the Commission is holding a conference call to get a briefing on the Ten Year Plan. Here is a link to the briefing notes. Pay close attention to how WDFW dances around the issue of no public oversight, and why they did not include the Commission. Again, letting the public know what they are doing is considered a BAD THING in WDFW's world! How long can we allow this to continue?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/01/jan1218_Combined_PSCHMP.pdf

The Commissioners cannot let this continue, they must grow a pair or get out of the way!
Please, contact the Commissioners who represent your area and ask them pointedly: DO YOU SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY OR NOT?

[tsuribaka]

Perry,

I get "Error 404 File not Found" when I click the link.

Did you listen into the call? I didn't see the notice until after registration closed at 4 PM yesterday. I was on the WDFW site on Wed so I'm pretty sure there was less than 24 hours notice to register -- more issues with transparency IMHO.

Anyway if you have any observations from what was said on the call I'd be interested to hear them.

[BayWolf]

Thanks T.  I fixed the link above.

Here is the audio file of the call:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/01/audio_jan1218.html

It's interesting to hear how the 8% was arrived at, sort of explained. From a confidential source: The Stillys waited till the very last second on Nov 31 (a strategy also applied in the North of Falcon by tribes) to insist on the 8%. Unsworth and Ron Warren were both out of Country, Unsworth in Vancouver and Warren in N.Zealand.  The deadline to get the plan submitted to NOAA was Dec 1. The guy left in charge, Jim Scott, wrote in the 8% and sent the draft plan to Unsworth via email, I guess hoping he would reject it on those terms. Apparently, Unsworth didn't read it, and just signed...
Now, as I said, this is from a confidential source, close to the administration.

As far as improving transparency. I encourage the Commission to take a very hard look at their "delegations" in the future.  We have submitted a petition to the Commission to convert the NOF policy into a WAC (Washington Administrative Code)  That would then make it a law and not just advisory. They then could write into the WAC more stringent oversight of the Department and include language for greater transparency.  Interesting to note, that the confidentiality clause for the mediation process, 1. Was waiverable, but they chose to keep it. and 2. It did not prevent WDFW from sharing details with the Commissioners.  Senior Staff at WDFW chose to keep the Commission out of it, because the Commission is liable to open public meetings laws, and WDFW did not want the public to have any information about what they were agreeing to!  If you want to find out more about this issue I invite you to look at our Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/OpenNorthofFalcon/  Or if you have any questions, you can reach us at: OpenNOF@gmail.com

[Omega3]

Out of the country is no excuse.This is the digital age and these guys are major players.We have cell phones,text,email,Skype and Facetime.No reason they can claim to be out of the process.

[Chasin Baitman]

Thanks for all your hard work baywolf. I appreciate your dedication.

I spent day fishing with one of the fishing advisors.  We had an excellent day of fishing, but what he has told me about everything going on behind the scenes has me very downcast. Hard to believe we could go out fishing, have the rod go off all day long, and they are threatening to shut it all down. It just makes no sense.

To me, the word that jumps out is "mediated" as in court mediated.  WDFW secretly and apparently very willingly sold us down the river.

[tsuribaka]

Big thanks from me also. While I don't like what I hear and read I'm glad it's open to us. I am fairly certain without your efforts we wouldn't be hearing about this until after it was 100% done probably after NOF rather than now when it's still only 95%. Still much work to do but thanks for getting us this far.

Listening to multiple instances of how when it comes to confidentiality the State has to respect the positions of other parties, the tribes, the Feds, the Court, etc. I found myself grating my teeth wondering how come no one has to respect our position?

Anyway keeping up the good fight until the ideal is won is one thing but I also tend to be pragmatic. That side of me is thinking about what gains can be made within the currently defined system to improve the ability of citizens to participate.

Listening to the Commissioners comments it sounds like they are generally in favor of more openness. But I don't really know any of them so it's hard to judge if they are sincere or not. I also think I hear WDFW Staff at least putting up a facade of reacting penitently to the knuckle rapping they have been given and identifying additional communication they would be willing to provide to the Commission if not the public.

A key point in here is that WDFW is using the Delegation Letter from the Commission as their authority to negotiate in secret "on our behalf." With the Commissioners none too pleased with what Staff have done with that delegated authority it may be a good time to suggest the Commission shorten up that leash and amend the Delegation Letter to bring the Commission inside the secret handshake loop. Commissioners are agents of the State so they are party to the negotiation and while it would probably piss off some of those involved they wouldn't have any legal means to object. We probably still wouldn't see the detailed negotiation content but I think we'd be more likely to get a chance for public comment on proposals before they are signed and official. Still far from ideal but perhaps better than where we are right now.

I guess it comes down to if we can trust the Commission any more than we can trust Staff. Are they worthy of our trust?

[Chasin Baitman]

I guess it comes down to if we can trust the Commission any more than we can trust Staff. Are they worthy of our trust?

For me this is a YES.  Vice-chair Carpenter is overtly and very strongly pro-sportfishing.  And his opinions carry alot of weight.  Graybill is also a strong sportfishing advocate, but is newer and less influential.  I know the chair Brad Smith, and he's not pro- anything which personally I think is a good thing.  He's a super levelheaded guy.  I don't know McIsaac but he seems to be much the same.  Kehoe represents purse seiners, but I tend to like him anyway ;)  The others are less known to me but I haven't really seen any big red flags.  I do miss Miranda Wecker.  She would have been piiiiiiissed how this all went down.

Anyway, the grumblings from those closer to this than me are that WDFW's management (with the help of the state AG) is subversively trying to neuter the Commission.  And therefore the public.  Jim Georg's column in the recent TRN alludes to this as well. So who is actually on the Commission may be less relevant.  The Commission itself as an official body is only about 20 years old (it was born when the Fish and Wildlife departments merged). It's not a long-standing institution.  Things could easily change.

But the AG seemed to be intimating that the Commission is basically already toothless.  Well, obviously so, given what has transpired. 

My question is still, was what WDFW did legal?  The AG says yes and who could challenge that?  The Commission (along with the Governor and WDFW) defers to the AG for legal matters. 

[BayWolf]

The thanks goes to you guys and all the other sportsmen, women and concerned citizens who have shown their support through the emails, calls, meeting attendance and basically staying active in the fight.  I'm happy to say, for the first time in as long as I can remember, we have a coalition of regular people large enough that we cannot be ignored easily.

You are spot on. AAG Grossmann, in our opinion has crossed the line from his role as legal counsel for WDFW to acting almost as a lobbyist. Some of what he has expressed, especially his innuendo that by delegating the responsibility to conduct negotiations, the Commission also delegated it's authority to approve policy, is ridicules. AAG Grossmann clearly is engaged in blame shifting.  He seem's hell bent on reducing the Commission to a advisory role, which would be catastrophic to all the non-tribal citizens of the state!  Another concern of our's is what the Commission is prepared to do to discipline the Director for his intentional play to subvert their authority. We feel as do some on the Board, they must act quickly, and in unison to fire him. There are some on the Board who at present, aren't sure what to do about it.  Dismissal is the only way they can send a clear message that they are the ultimate supervising authority and re-establish the confidence of the stakeholders.  We need a strong and legally authoritative Commission to represent the citizens.

We find it interesting that the Commission's appointed legal counsel, AAG Frymire has been silent from any public input. Again, in our experience, Frymire has appeared subordinate to Grossmann, and in such, seems derelict of his duties to the Commission.  Things sure appear to be lining up that WDFW along with their legal gun, AAG Grossmann are in a power struggle with the Commission.  With an ineffective legal counsel of their own, the Board is at a disadvantage other than the strong public support we have given them.  We pushed for and achieved the start of Senate confirmations for those board members that did not have a current confirmation (Including Larry Carpenter and Don McIssac and others). Confirmation protects them from arbitrary removal by the Gov. Another form of support and protection the stakeholders did for the Commission, the senior staff at WDFW was silent.

The Ten Year Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Plan is a prime example of what damage comes out of secret negotiations when only one side of the Co-management process is allowed input.  The confidentiality clause of the court directed mediation DID NOT include the Commission. We confirmed this with Grossmann. It was the decision of the Tribes and WDFW senior staff to intentionally leave the Commission out of any details, specifically because the Commission is culpable under the Open Public Meetings Laws, and they did not want the Commission to be in a position to share details of the negotiations with the public!  There claim being, they need total confidentiality in order to freely express themselves!  You see the results!

Of note:  We are fast moving into the North of Falcon, and another opportunity for WDFW to negotiate yet another secret deal that we will have to live with.  The Tribes will be able to speak their minds, make their demands and wrangle their deals, all behind locked doors with some of the very same people, under the very same poor leadership that got us the wonderful Ten Year Plan.  Now, does that make a lot of sense?  We submitted a petition to the Commission, which they will discuss in a closed conference call, calling on them to convert the North of Falcon "policy", which is advisory, into a WAC (Washington Administrative Code) which is a law.  We want them to write into this WAC stringent supervision over WDFW, Clear authoritative policy approval, and clear transparency in all negotiations conducted by WDFW, regardless of who they are negotiating with!  It's clear, we cannot trust the senior staff at WDFW to represent the sport fishing community any longer without direct and stringent supervision and open and transparent meetings. It is the ONLY way we will be able to start to fix the train wreck that our fisheries management has become.

I really appreciate your interest in this. We need all sport fishermen and conservation minded citizens to learn what is REALLY GOING ON in the fisheries.  If you would like to get a deeper understanding of what is happening, please visit our facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/OpenNorthofFalcon/

Or contact me directly by email at: OpenNOF@Gmail.com

I look forward to more discussions.

[tsuribaka]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I listened to the 12 Jan audio and started listing the problems and questions I have with the Plan and it just kept growing and growing. Heading into the 19 Jan meeting I'm interested in any comments anyone might have where I'm misunderstanding the situation or missing a key point etc.

0) Harvest Overconstraint. The fundamental problem with the Plan is that it proposes continued reduction in harvest levels while simultaneously noting that harvest is already constrained below levels that impede recovery. It is stated repeatedly in the Plan that habitat is the factor that is impeding recovery and adopting the harvest regime proposed in the Plan will not result in population recovery. This is madness.

1) Delegation. Is this really what the Commission intended when they issued the Delegation Order to the Director? Perhaps this would be a good time to consider modification of the order to prescribe additional consultation with the Commission, opportunity for public input and Commission approval prior to execution of agreements not after.
2) Mutual respect between the Mediation parties. Much of the explanation of how the confidential mediation developed centers around respect for the desires and policies of the other stakeholders including the tribes and the US Govt. I find it immensely frustrating that the State is expected to respect the other stakeholders but there is very little reciprocity for our dearly held ideals of open government and transparency. I am also troubled by the mediation judge's demand that the State "come to [mediation] with your decision makers." The Commission and the public have legitimate and critical roles in decision making in our form of government and a sitting federal court judge should not need a remedial civics lesson on that point.
3) Does the Plan address all elements of the "Meet and Confer" and mediation content? Conservation constraints for fisheries are obviously in there (but are they all covered?) – the other elements mentioned in the powerpoint presentation (NOF Protocols and Opening Fisheries on basis other than LOAF) are not obvious. If the other elements will come into play via some other agreement the Commission should get out in front and ensure appropriate Commission oversight and opportunities for public input are provided.
4) Allocation between SUS and Northern fisheries. It is not fair that the SUS has to absorb all the impact and risk of NOAA policy changes specifically total exploitation rate ceiling for Stillaguamish Chinook. Northern fishery exploitation should be proportionally reduced in concert with SUS and most importantly Northern fishery impacts must also be converted to ceiling. We must demand that NOAA fairly allocate impacts and risks between US fishery units and negotiate with Canada to shoulder their fair share.
5) Modeling fidelity. Increased fidelity of return models is a key element of the Plan but no information is given that provides any confidence that more accurate modeling is in fact possible. Development and validation of new models will take years of research. In the interim we can only expect overly conservative management to ensure compliance with the hard ceiling.
6) Projected fishery impacts. On slide 39 WDFW Staff have indicated some fishery changes that might have been considered if the management objectives proposed in the Plan were applied to the 2017 season. The first item is removal of freshwater "sport incidentals." I presume that means incidental impacts to Chinook during sport fisheries targeting other species in the river. What does "removal" mean? Is that a polite way of saying the fisheries producing those impacts would be closed?
7) Important questions on slide 45. Ideally these should be understood prior to setting policy. However lack of full understanding is clearly not a reasonable rationale for postponing action in a critical situation. But given the long term nature of the proposal the Plan must codify these key issues and explicitly establish either adjusted management actions and objectives (best) or specific policy reconsideration triggers (acceptable) when future science provides answers that challenge the management paradigm of the Plan.
8) Mitigation. The existence of additional mitigation approaches is indicated on slide 46. Ideally these should be codified in the Plan along with associated adjustments to the management scheme that will be applied based on successful implementation of the mitigation element. At a minimum an obligation on all parties and a mechanism to revisit and adjust the management scheme without full renegotiation and reapproval of the Plan must be included.
9) Upward adjustment mechanisms. The Plan does provide for some adjustment of exploitation above the most severely constrained levels when populations are observed to improve. However these would still be below the rates experienced in recent history. The Plan should include a mechanism to return to recent historical exploitation levels when populations successfully recover. It's important that the crisis level rates do not become a "new normal." Also reference Commissioner McIssac's comments about nimbly reacting to available surplus without the need to reopen the Plan and seek reapproval from NOAA.
10) NOAA insufficiency. When will the NOAA comments be made available for review?
11) 2018 management objective. Given the multitude of problems identified with the Plan as currently constituted it doesn't provide a reliable basis for setting 2018 management objectives. The Commission should direct WDFW Staff to continue 2017 management objectives going into 2018 NOF negotiations subject to adjustment as needed for particular populations. However this approach carries risk that under the 2017 management paradigm NOAA may demand harvest restrictions more constraining than under the new unfinished regime.

[Chasin Baitman]

Purple shirt guy, I think you typed out a 12-point path to sanity. I would love to hear adicks or warren address each and every one of those points, at length.

7) is the key one for me. I was horrified to hear adicks actually say out loud that if the plan were used as a guideline for 2017 season setting, MA7 would have been completely closed. Completely. Closed.

Not to get off topic, but the fact you started the list at 0 makes me think you might be a computer guy(?)  I do this too.

[BayWolf]

Having read over your post, it screams for not only answers and explanations,  it begs for an answer as to why the State feels it's better to keep people like tsuribaka out of the conversations!  We have Fish advisory groups and some very informed citizens that have a lot to contribute if only they were allowed to.

[tsuribaka]

Purple shirt guy, I think you typed out a 12-point path to sanity. I would love to hear adicks or warren address each and every one of those points, at length.

7) is the key one for me. I was horrified to hear adicks actually say out loud that if the plan were used as a guideline for 2017 season setting, MA7 would have been completely closed. Completely. Closed.

Not to get off topic, but the fact you started the list at 0 makes me think you might be a computer guy(?)  I do this too.

Purple shirt guy - I had to look that one up. 

Also you're giving me too much credit - the list starts from 0 because I was too lazy to go back and renumber after I decided halfway through that was the most fundamental point and should go at the top.  :whistle:

[Chasin Baitman]

Purple shirt guy - I had to look that one up. 

IIRC that's what Ron Warren called you at the Mill Creek NOF meeting last year, isn't it? 

[tsuribaka]

I had forgotten about that...   

So it wasn't a reference to the heckler at an NBA game who went viral on the intarwebz? Here I was trying to figure out if it was Kyle, Ron or Jim who was Dwayne Wade.

I'm gonna dig in the closet and see if I can find that shirt for Fri.  :biggrin:

[BayWolf]

Gentlemen,

I will not be able to attend the meeting on Friday because I have an appointment (finally) with my Senate District Representative. Please, take every opportunity of voice your concerns. If you feel so inclined, please support transparency and our petition to convert the NOF policy to a WAC.

Thank you!

[Chasin Baitman]

Good luck down there, tsuribaka.  My friend Mark (Bellingham PSA president) is down there today giving testimony.  One starting thing he discovered is...

If area 7 had been completely closed in 2016/17, IT WOULD HAVE SAVED A WHOPPING 3.4 STILLY CHINOOK (obviously estimated).  I couldn't believe that, but it was verified by WDFW.

Summer fishery - 2.2 fish
Winter Fishery - 1.2 fish

It's based on the total recorded area 7 sport catch, and the estimated Exploitation Rate for the MA7 sport fishery on Stillaguamish Chinook.

Pretty horrifying that we're facing a total closure for...WTH????

[mustang65fbk]

So here's the question that I have and posted as much on the tidal exchange website. If we closed down all fishing (sports-fishermen, commercial and tribes) in every area for a season or two, would that make a difference?  Not necessarily talking about just the Stilly but for the main rivers in the greater Snohomish County? Id have to think that if the tribes and commercial guys weren't allowed to use their nets for a season or two that the amount of fish repopulation would have to go up or at least couldn't get any worse? I've talked to a buddy about it and as much as I'd hate to not be able to fish for a season or two, I'd be willing to do it IF both sides played fairly and didn't fish and if it would help to preserve the species. If they're going to keep us off the water for a decade though while they continue to fish? Well that's an entirely different story.

[BayWolf]

So here's the question that I have and posted as much on the tidal exchange website. If we closed down all fishing (sports-fishermen, commercial and tribes) in every area for a season or two, would that make a difference?  Not necessarily talking about just the Stilly but for the main rivers in the greater Snohomish County? Id have to think that if the tribes and commercial guys weren't allowed to use their nets for a season or two that the amount of fish repopulation would have to go up or at least couldn't get any worse? I've talked to a buddy about it and as much as I'd hate to not be able to fish for a season or two, I'd be willing to do it IF both sides played fairly and didn't fish and if it would help to preserve the species. If they're going to keep us off the water for a decade though while they continue to fish? Well that's an entirely different story.

In theory it would. Provided it was a complete moratorium and fully supported through the entire fishing matrix.  I fear any reduction in our waters would be exploited in the Northern fisheries.  In addition, in a very simplistic view, there would also have to be enough gravel for all the fish that would return. If the habitat won't support the numbers, it would not necessarily result in more fish over the long run. The Stilly is a great example. Here's an interesting point.  A couple of years ago, based on very low Coho returns, several Tribes applied for and received emergency management funds for not fishing! The failed Coho return was declared an emergency, so they got the money!  Now, imagine what kind of lawsuits and emergency funding would be provided if the salmon in Washington was reduced to a point ALL fishing (including tribal) was shut down.  It's a win, win. Fish and sell fish, or reduce all the fish and get reparations for no longer being able to fish.  No matter how you cut it, it will land on the State, and consequently the tax payers back!

[Omega3]

Remind me again of what species fish we are trying to save.We can't keep unmarked fish so impact there is low to none.Hatchery production is down so we are willingly reducing the fish we can keep.Co management with the tribes is a complete failure.

[tsuribaka]

So here's the question that I have and posted as much on the tidal exchange website. If we closed down all fishing (sports-fishermen, commercial and tribes) in every area for a season or two, would that make a difference?  Not necessarily talking about just the Stilly but for the main rivers in the greater Snohomish County? Id have to think that if the tribes and commercial guys weren't allowed to use their nets for a season or two that the amount of fish repopulation would have to go up or at least couldn't get any worse? I've talked to a buddy about it and as much as I'd hate to not be able to fish for a season or two, I'd be willing to do it IF both sides played fairly and didn't fish and if it would help to preserve the species.

Just common sense, right? Only the data tell a different story. Because we keep moving more people to the region and build to accommodate them the habitat is able to support fewer and fewer fish. Restricting harvest further may put a few more fish on the spawning grounds (though not many - see CB's post) but it will not result in population growth because the habitat can't support them.

We've cut and cut and cut again the seasons and the bag limits and yet the population is going down and down for the past 30 years. It's time to stop doing the same thing and expecting different results. The focus has to be shifted to habitat and hatchery enhancement.

[Omega3]

I don't buy the habitat baloney.There are more restrictions now than ever.Logging has increased buffers.Shoreline restrictions have increased.Anyone try to build a house near the water lately?Land trust holdings are at all time highs.Water quality is better now than in the 70's when our ports were toxic soup.The Nisqually's reclaimed an entire delta.The Great Lakes have a great population of Chinook that were started from zero from our brood stock.Do you think they have better habitat than we do.?The habitat argument is a crock,same as the people that say we are cutting all the trees down.There is plenty of good habitat left that is not being used for fish production.

[tsuribaka]

The Plan document calls for radical harvest reductions then repeatedly turns around in the next breath and says the real culprit is habitat degradation and harvest reduction won't change a thing unless the habitat is restored.

There are more than 1.5 million more people in the Puget Sound region now than there were in 1990. Proportionally that's 50% growth over the period. 4.6 million up from 3.1 million. All those extra people want to eat and drink and bathe and piss and poop and drive and build houses and work at jobs and shop in malls etc. etc. etc. That affects the watersheds. The controls you reference have improved some of the historical cesspools but sprawl has spread the impacts much more broadly. We are not keeping pace much less reversing the trend. While correlation doesn't always mean causation sometimes it does and a habitat degradation hypothesis fits the available data much better than one based on harvest reduction.

How much are you willing to bet that you're right and the studies are all wrong? NOAA puts the economic value of recreational saltwater fishing in Washington State at 6500 jobs and $775M a year. Not huge compared to say Amazon or Boeing but still important especially to the people working those jobs. Those numbers are going to be a lot smaller if the Sound is closed. Small businesses can't afford to sit out a season or two much less a decade of closures and will close up shop.

Draw your own conclusions and support what makes sense to you but when even the authors of the Plan don't believe more cuts will make a discernible difference my vote is we try something different instead of doubling down on the pattern of harvest cutting that hasn't changed the population decline trends for the last 30 years.

[Omega3]

The Plan document calls for radical harvest reductions then repeatedly turns around in the next breath and says the real culprit is habitat degradation and harvest reduction won't change a thing unless the habitat is restored.

There are more than 1.5 million more people in the Puget Sound region now than there were in 1990. Proportionally that's 50% growth over the period. 4.6 million up from 3.1 million. All those extra people want to eat and drink and bathe and piss and poop and drive and build houses and work at jobs and shop in malls etc. etc. etc. That affects the watersheds. The controls you reference have improved some of the historical cesspools but sprawl has spread the impacts much more broadly. We are not keeping pace much less reversing the trend. While correlation doesn't always mean causation sometimes it does and a habitat degradation hypothesis fits the available data much better than one based on harvest reduction.

How much are you willing to bet that you're right and the studies are all wrong? NOAA puts the economic value of recreational saltwater fishing in Washington State at 6500 jobs and $775M a year. Not huge compared to say Amazon or Boeing but still important especially to the people working those jobs. Those numbers are going to be a lot smaller if the Sound is closed. Small businesses can't afford to sit out a season or two much less a decade of closures and will close up shop.

Draw your own conclusions and support what makes sense to you but when even the authors of the Plan don't believe more cuts will make a discernible difference my vote is we try something different instead of doubling down on the pattern of harvest cutting that hasn't changed the population decline trends for the last 30 years.

I agree we have more people now than 30 years ago and that cutting sportfishing isn't going to bring back huge numbers of fish.What I do know is in any fishery where nets and commercial harvest is banned fish populations incresae dramatically.This is true worldwide.I also know that habitat can be completely destroyed and fish will return.Remember Mt.St.Helens?The Toutle River was a mudflow,blast zone.There are fish there now.Nature has a way of healing itself.I know that in Lake Washington 100,000 fish can be counted entering the lake at the locks yet only 30,000 make it to the Cedar River.Guess who was in there with nets?I know there are Halibut in the Straight before the longlines go in but are far and few between after they come out.I know there are shrimp and crab in Puget Sound before commercial harvest and far fewer when they are done.I know that far fewer fish raised in a tribal hatchery get marked as opposed to a state run hatchery.Why?Because that puts those fish off limits to the sportsman.None of this has anything to do with loss of habitat.The problem is 43 years old and it's called the Boldt Decision.