Occupy Skagit, on steroids.
- Thread starter Salmo_g
- Start date
Agency leadership
To help implement the policies of the Fish and Wildlife Commission, the WDFW department director appoints agency region directors, a policy director and a deputy director. Assistant directors manage agency programs under the direction of the deputy director. This team works collaboratively to...
wdfw.wa.gov
I started laughing when I read many of these bios… hint hint… your flyfishing interests are not well represented.
Working on it. Like the original Occupy Skagit (OS), this is a very grass roots, loosely organized effort. Yet decidedly more focused than WDFW. Subject to changes for the sake of improvement, the narrative goes something like this: Occupy Skagit is an alternative fishery management entity, authorized by those who would believe in it. As a high falutin' modern creation, it will be web based so that the younger generation, who are largely glued to their smart phones, can easily access it. It may have a presence on Facebook, Instagram, or other places where people who hang out on social media gather. (Obviously not me, as I don't have a clue what I'm talking about in this realm.) We'll likely be seeking a web domain name and a website developer who can put this thing together. I may be fantasizing at this point, but I envision it being easier to use than the WDFW app.
OS declares itself to be a self-regulating Tribe and therefore promulgates its own fishing regulations (inspired by Jim Travers Main Amendment). OS will host fishing regulations which are basically plagiarized from WDFW's Special Fishing Regulations that have long governed the Skagit CNR steelhead fishing season. With one variation initially, that being, instead of being limited to single barbless hooks, flies and artificial lures must be "hookless." We're not looking to make trouble here, not serious trouble anyway. Just the kind of trouble that motivates WDFW mangement to get off their collective azzes and constructively address recreational angling on anadromous fish rivers and streams. At a later point, the hookless designation is intended to be dropped so that we may continue the CNR fishing seasons many of us have enjoyed as far back as 1981.
Anglers can create their OS account, like with a Washington WILD ID number, and then log in whenever needed. This online database offers cells to record angler account, date, river code, and catch. Since catch = zero when "casting for grabs," 0+ becomes an important number. Maybe cells for hours fished and zip code so that this conforms to WDFW's current monitoring data collection. The upshot is that this self-regulating fishery provides essentially the same data that accrues when WDFW hires biologists or technicians to collect monitoring data.
Although WDFW has become nearly irrelevant to steelhead management, I don't want to exclude them. The Department should have access to the dataset because they probably want to believe that they are still relevant. However, I'll judge the Department by its actions, not by what it says.
If this effort shows some initial success, then I'd like to expand it to include fishing on the Stilly and Skykomish, places where recreational fishing has been constrained more by state/treaty-tribal politics than actual fish conservation. Ideally, OS will cause WDFW enough embarrassment that it restores itself to actively working for the people who pay the taxes and buy the licenses that pay their salaries and keep the lights on and the doors open at the Natural Resources Building in Olympia by maintaining traditional trout and steelhead fishing in anadromous rivers, consistent with actual conservation requirements, not made up shit like they started in 2015 on the Stilly.
As a foundation for an Occupy Skagit 2.0 we should use the agency/commission's own policies.
WDFW Commission policy C-3608 - 2024 -2028 North of Falcon states
"The Department will implement this policy consistent with the following principles:":
"Salmon and steelhead will be managed to recovery and to assure sustainability in a way that is science-based, well documented, transparent, well communicated, and accountable." (my emphasis added).
I believe that it can be argued that the federally approved Skagit Steelhead River Management Plan that allows a directed recreational fishery at ESA listed wild (NOR) steelhead will variable allowed impacts depending on forecast threshold levels meets a higher conservation standard than the co-manager's Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan (which still waiting final approval) provides for the Puget Sound ESA listed Chinook. In the Chinook plan NOR Chinook impacts are from by-catch in fisheries directed at other species or hatchery Chinook. As such the Skagit spring steelhead CnR season should be a higher priority that the various Chinook fisheries.
Remember the Skagit plan basically reflects that the Skagit steelhead if treated as a stand-alone stock would not be considered to a threatened ESA stock.
The policy goes on to provide some general guidance
"On as statewide basis, fishing opportunities will provided when they can be directed at heath wild and hatchery stocks"
"Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunities and minimize impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration legal constraints or implementation and budget limits associated with required sampling, monitoring and enforcement programs."
"When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitability across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interest of fishers, including retention and catch and release."
I believe the Skagit spring steelhead season easily meets the above guidance. Given all of the above and the uniqueness of the Skagit steelhead fishery it would be reasonable ask of the commission to direct the agency to prioritize the fishery including funding the needed sampling, monitoring, and enforcement.
Something to chew on.
Curt
WDFW Commission policy C-3608 - 2024 -2028 North of Falcon states
"The Department will implement this policy consistent with the following principles:":
"Salmon and steelhead will be managed to recovery and to assure sustainability in a way that is science-based, well documented, transparent, well communicated, and accountable." (my emphasis added).
I believe that it can be argued that the federally approved Skagit Steelhead River Management Plan that allows a directed recreational fishery at ESA listed wild (NOR) steelhead will variable allowed impacts depending on forecast threshold levels meets a higher conservation standard than the co-manager's Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan (which still waiting final approval) provides for the Puget Sound ESA listed Chinook. In the Chinook plan NOR Chinook impacts are from by-catch in fisheries directed at other species or hatchery Chinook. As such the Skagit spring steelhead CnR season should be a higher priority that the various Chinook fisheries.
Remember the Skagit plan basically reflects that the Skagit steelhead if treated as a stand-alone stock would not be considered to a threatened ESA stock.
The policy goes on to provide some general guidance
"On as statewide basis, fishing opportunities will provided when they can be directed at heath wild and hatchery stocks"
"Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunities and minimize impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration legal constraints or implementation and budget limits associated with required sampling, monitoring and enforcement programs."
"When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitability across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interest of fishers, including retention and catch and release."
I believe the Skagit spring steelhead season easily meets the above guidance. Given all of the above and the uniqueness of the Skagit steelhead fishery it would be reasonable ask of the commission to direct the agency to prioritize the fishery including funding the needed sampling, monitoring, and enforcement.
Something to chew on.
Curt
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
Curt spoke about the spring king monitoring vs. spring steelhead monitoring issue at the one NOF meeting I attended. I believe he asked for data as to the number of anglers who participatedin the two fisheries and possibly the cost of monitoring for the two fisheries. I thought that it was an excellent beginning to the discussion as to how the state spends it's money allocated to monitoring.
Maybe a request for public information is in order to get that information? Requests for public information are generally a PIA for staff but it seems to be a good time to use the tool. Thoughts?
Maybe a request for public information is in order to get that information? Requests for public information are generally a PIA for staff but it seems to be a good time to use the tool. Thoughts?
An aside: Not "Salmo(N)_G. Prior to 1989 the Latin name for rainbow trout was Salmo gairdneri, salmo being the genus, from the Russian naturalist who first named it, and gairdneri, or "Gairdner's trout," the Hudson Bay Company employee who was erroneously thought to have first identified rainbow trout from the Columbia River in the early 1800s. In 1989, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) decided that rainbow and cutthroat trout are more like Pacific salmon, Onchorynchus, than the "true" Salmo salar and trutta. And since the Russians were first to describe rainbow trout as mykiss, they get priority naming rights. So we ended up with O. mykiss and O. clarki. I was disappointed with the AFS name change, so I adopted Salmo g. for email and internet use.
Back on topic, yes, I think we should learn about numbers of anglers in the respective fisheries and how much $$ WDFW spends for monitoring.
I can see some heartburn in this paragraph of general guidance for the policy. Given the spineless attribute of the Director, legal constraints could be like when, ". . . the Stilly Tribe makes us close the river to recreational fishing . . ." and budget limits can be like what we see presently when the Department chooses to fund other things instead of Skagit steelhead monitoring. I'm all for adopting the policy and guidance to the extent it serves our interest in fishing and in conservation.
As an American in America doing American things in an American way, who the actual f**k let a red white and blue fish get named by some pinko commie sumbitch anyways ?
Will OS will issue prior notification to WDFW LEOs to either encourage (they have to control protesters, will get photo-ops & publicity) or discourage (they aren't really causing harm to the fish, more important things to do) their presence?
Will WDFW leadership muster enforcement with orders to issue citations to:
1. stop the appearance that fishing is legal in waters that are closed? And
2. perpetuate (or create) an interpretation that harassment of fish in closed waters during their spawning migration can include casting hookless flies since a fly is considered a "lure" meant to attract fish?
Will WDFW leadership muster enforcement with orders to issue citations to:
1. stop the appearance that fishing is legal in waters that are closed? And
2. perpetuate (or create) an interpretation that harassment of fish in closed waters during their spawning migration can include casting hookless flies since a fly is considered a "lure" meant to attract fish?
I've wondered about the same but after thinking about it further, I think if we simply have a piece of yarn at the end of the leader, then it's "casting practice" and I find it hard for any citation to stick.
If they're not going to ticket people for throwing rocks into the river, or throwing sticks for their dogs or floating over redds on their SUP, they're not going to ticket us for wading shin deep doing some fancy casts. Especially if the hookless fly (or yarn) is on/in the surface.
I could find 10 lawyers by Tuesday that would defend me by arguing that a fish attacking my hookless fly is NOT harassment...regardless of whatever status that species happens to be. Threatened, endangered, whatever.
And was it even a steelhead?
The act of fishing is to cast a HOOK with the goal of catching a fish.
Casting a hookless thing with the goal of improving my cack-handed snap T is NOT fishing.
I could find 10 lawyers by Tuesday that would defend me by arguing that a fish attacking my hookless fly is NOT harassment...regardless of whatever status that species happens to be. Threatened, endangered, whatever.
And was it even a steelhead?
The act of fishing is to cast a HOOK with the goal of catching a fish.
Casting a hookless thing with the goal of improving my cack-handed snap T is NOT fishing.
Maybe, maybe not.
or a Chinook?
Again could an LEO possibly reason that it does create the appearance of fishing that might lead inexperienced anglers to believe that it's open water?
And while it may draw general public attention, that increasingly might not even care about recreational fishing, a citation could end up costing you PTO, money (parking, transit, and/or fine), and possibly even gear (temporarily) confiscated even if dismissed. All for a noble cause though!
I'm not saying don't do it, but don't use that Burkie spey rod to make a statement
.
This has no legal grounds.Again could an LEO possibly reason that it does create the appearance of fishing that might lead inexperienced anglers to believe that it's open water?
The inexperienced anglers need to check the regs like everyone else.
Me appearing to fish is not legal grounds for them to assume it's open.
Just like if I saw poachers fishing and thought "oh, it must be open". I'm guilty of not checking the regs and fishing closed waters, as are the poachers.
The only real charge they could drum up if casting hookless stuff is harassment of a protected species. And if it's protected, why were they going to have a season if they had the funding? And why is the lower river open for salmon? And why don't you ticket the dude that just threw a stick in the river for Fido?
Anyway....
I promise I'm really not a dick.
And I'm pro enforcement. Wish there was more in fact. It seems like this needs to happen and I'm all for it. If we don't, they just close stuff and never open it again. Even if there's fish.
Speaking of that...has anyone seen any actual redd studies or escapement numbers for the native run on the Sky?
Short answer, I don't know. Part of me doesn't want to give WDFW a reason to think the agency has relevance any longer when it comes to fisheries in anadromous rivers. Besides, they'll know because some of the staff view this forum. I very much want to create the appearance that we are fishing because we feel that WDFW has become irrelevant. As for LE issuing citations, that's gonna' be like pissin' into the wind when I explain to the judge that I can walk through the forest with a loaded rifle hunting for deer, but unless I actually shoot one I've done nothing illegal. Creating an appearance is not an illegal act. The only way this ruins LE's day is if they choose to waste their time chasing around after faux anglers.
Do you have much experience with attorneys and are you willing to pony up the cash? If so do it, I think its great dudes and dudettes are pushing back against Olympia’s agenda. But if you’re simply blurting out an ego driven post and aren’t willing to walk the walk, figure out another way to convey your message.
Pink Nighty
Legend
Some definitions from the ol reg book
Angling (hook and line fishing) for personal use with a lime attached to a pole capable of being held in hand while a fish is landed, or a hand operated line without a pole or reel.
Lure: a manufactured article, complete with hooks, constructed of feathers, fur, fiber, wood, metal, glass, cork, rubber or leather which does not use scent/flavoring to attract fish.
WDFW is pretty clear that if you don't have hooks, you're neither Angling nor using lures.
Angling (hook and line fishing) for personal use with a lime attached to a pole capable of being held in hand while a fish is landed, or a hand operated line without a pole or reel.
Lure: a manufactured article, complete with hooks, constructed of feathers, fur, fiber, wood, metal, glass, cork, rubber or leather which does not use scent/flavoring to attract fish.
WDFW is pretty clear that if you don't have hooks, you're neither Angling nor using lures.
It does look like he is wearing hip boots. Not bad for a AI image.
Looks like the tech companies are still stealing images without attribution or payment.
They can run over the little guy, but Mark McGuire might have lawyers. Though I suspect the tech companies would argue that Mark was fishing on the Snake River where the expectation of privacy is not in force. And besides, he was wearing a A's uniform with his number and name on it in a public place!!!
Or maybe I am the one hanging out and section 209 is protecting the tech companies??
Oh, you might want to specify the Skagit when you create your image with ChatGpt. Nice picture of the Snake, though.
Last edited:
For you and @skyriver , I didn't mean to imply that a Judge would hand down a fine for appearance only.
But an LEO in bad mood (or provoked) might issue a citation that would haul you into court to dispute and beat it. For a groundless citation like that the LEO might not even show up in court to avoid being scolded by the Judge.
A citation for malicious hassassment of threatened fish with a hookless "lure" in the water is gross misdemeanor or class C felony under RCW 77.15.120. According to USFWS wildlife harassment during a protest—even with non-malicious intent—can still be legally considered harassment if the actions significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns or cause likelihood of injury (or spawning success?). Significantly and likelihood might be in the subjective judgement of an LEO to issue the citation, but not necessarily incure a judgement against you.
In either case you could-would probably wind up in Mt Vernon for a court date, taking PTO-sick leave, paying for gas and/or transit, sitting in long traffic backups to do so. At least there is free parking nearby in MV. For the harassment charge, I would definitely want an attorney.
I get it, that showing up to court is as much a part of the protest as is the gathering for casting with other protesters; possibly with news crews present to get the word out about the absurdity of the closure and is a noble cause, worthy to be passionate about.
I am also saying that a harrassment citation from a provoked LEO is serious enough it could lead to that Burkie speyrod and Iconic reel might not be going home with you from the protest. Use your own judgement about that.
Last edited: