A must for any one that is planning of fishing the Columbia next spring for chinook

[David Johnson]

If each of you called three others, we would overflow these meetings! This is the one to do it!

Oregon and Washington are having a joint public meeting on Tuesday, November 13th @ 6:00 to get public input for the Columbia and Willamette Spring Chinook fisheries on Spring Chinook in 2002. Commissioners and staff from both states will be there. It is important that individuals SHOW UP and let the departments know what will be best for your business, and their budgets! If you cannot be there, make a phone call to the commissioners to give them your input. As always, it is not about bashing commercial fishers, it is about promoting the values of sportfishing. If you need the commission phone numbers, call Frances @ 503 631 8859 or e-mail her at nsiafrances@aol.com and she will get them to you. (Please don't respond to this e-mail, since I will be out of town until 11-13) You can also write testimony and send it to 503 631 3887. We will copy and hand carry for you. We have pasted a few of our talking points below. You can call NSIA for more information.


November 2, 2001
Contact: Cindy LeFleur, (360) 906-6708

Public meeting to focus
on Columbia spring chinook

VANCOUVER* Washington and Oregon fish managers will hold a public discussion here next week on future management options for Columbia River spring chinook.
The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. Nov. 13 in the Water Resources Education Center, 4600 SE Columbia Way in Vancouver.
The meeting is the second in a series of public sessions on future non-tribal recreational and commercial allocation of Columbia River spring chinook.
Fish managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife are holding the meetings to gather public input as part of the process of developing a policy to guide sharing of non-tribal harvest opportunity between sport and commercial fishers.
Total allowable non-Indian harvest levels were set earlier this year in a multi-year plan developed by both states and Columbia River treaty tribes. The plan set conservation goals for weak wild salmon stocks on the Columbia and Snake rivers.
# # #

TALKING POINTS

Ø Start with who you are and why this is important to you! Give all the facts figures and numbers you can about your business and how important sportfishing is to you. (i.e. how long you have been in business, how many employees, jobs dollars cents. If you are a sport angler, talk about family and tradition, if you are a guide, be sure to refer to the hotels and marinas you use. Better yet, get them to write a letter of support.

Ø We want a full season of world class sportfishing in the Columbia (i.e March through Memorial day) Commercial fishers need to go in early and finish up late.
This fishery will give sorely needed funds to the state Agencies (WDF&W is looking at 15-20% budget cuts, ODF&W 2-10% cuts) AND generate dollars along Columbia River communities and throughout the NW. Sportfishing is one of the only bright spots in the NW economy. Per Gov. Kitzhaber, we NEED to promote tourism.

Ø We support a one-year agreement, with the Columbia sportfishing and the Willamette sportfishing separated from each other. With a new, somewhat unknown sportfishing developing in the Columbia, we don't know enough to tie ourselves into a multi year agreement. The economic benefits of this fishery need to be fully realized. The agencies and our communities need this. With drought conditions this year the prospects a few years out most likely won't support a commercial fishery. Why build infrastructure now?

Ø In the Willamette, we do not support a major change in the Plan, which drastically reduces our sportfishing opportunity. (Staff is currently suggesting that the commercials get 24% of a run size >44,000 rather than 24% of a run >60,000.) This greatly reduces the quality of a prized fishery in the Willamette, hardley an appropriate reward for years of striving to conserve wild fish with mass marking!

So, if you cannot attend these critical meetings call: Your Commissioners and Directors. Dr. Jeff Koenings: 360.902.2225 Lindsay Ball 503.872.5272 call NSIA for a fax of the Commission numbers.

We need to show that a lot of people care about these fisheries. That means SHOW UP at important meetings. They are:

11-13, Public Meeting 6:00 Water Resources Education Center, 4600 SE Columbia Way, Vancouver
11-16, Oregon Commission meeting 2101 SW lst, Portland, Willamette after lunch!
December 7&8 Washington Commission Decision, Vancouver WA
12-14 Oregon Commission, Portland, OR

[Pete]

This is important ... Thanks for bringing it to our attention. The talking points are very helpful.

[David Johnson]

It's a shame there hasn't been much respnce. They will be crying when they can't fish the Columbia, or when the gill nets are alowed to catch so many more of those fish.

[garyk]

Thanks for that post!!!

I'll copy it to folks in my address book.

Does the allocation decision also impact the summer/fall chinook season?

I'm still ****** at how September's chinook fishing at Frenchman's Bar was choked off by the nets at about the time the water was cooling and the bite picking up. AND the netting season just went on and on, sacrificing the sportfishing when the netters seem to have hardly had buyers for their product (our fish) -- forcing them to roadside stands and selling fish for $1/lb.

That said, I'll be good for getting several letters written and perhaps a couple folks attending.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

David Johnson

Thank you for the information. I for one appreciate your effort. I believe it is important that we all understand what is going on with this natural resource and the political forces that surround it. Do not despair that your post has not garnered the attention or response you believe it should. Informing the public is half the battle, coming up with a good strategy is the other. Although letting the commission know OUR opinion is important in many issues, sometimes going forth, hat in hand and sheepishly asking for our fair share of the salmon is more than likely not going to provide us with any benefit. We as sports fishermen should look for ways to force more favorable allotments of salmon. Pressing the “maximum economic benefit” may be nice but forcing them to comply with Oregon Administrative rules regarding the Procedures for Promulgation of Angling Regulations would have perhaps more teeth:

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/...5/635_011.html

“ 635-011-0050(2)(a )Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the Commission shall adopt annually those rules prescribing seasons, bag limits, method of harvest, and specific restrictions considered necessary to provide optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits to anglers and other citizens;”

Asking them to negotiate with the “optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits to anglers and other citizens in mind” may be better then asking them to play fair…

*** Clerk

[David Johnson]

Also a good point *** Clerk.

That first post that I printed on this subject was a copy form an Email sent out by NSIA.

NSIA has been hard at work behind the scenes trying to get the most of our resorce for the fishing public and this is one of the ways they are doing it.

For those that don't know what NSIA is it stands for Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. It's members include tacke manufactureres, guides, sporting goods stors etc. Hence the angle on how our fisheries impact the ecconomy.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

I am aware of the work done by Liz Hamilton at NSIA. I have read several of the letters she has sent to the Commission as well as 1 sent to Mr. Ball and Mr. Bowels. NSIA does a good job of informing the decision making people of our concerns but they seem to be somewhat naive regarding the true political forces that drive our Game Commission. I, for one, see no advantage asking the commission for consideration in a public hearing when more than likely the decision was pre-determined in some back room by a special interest group. We need to find a better way to apply leverage. If we get a rule passed that sets the size of ODFW by the number of Sport licenses sold each year perhaps they would start listening? NSIA is well intended but the gloves need to come off if they are going to listen. Landowners found a ***** in the armor buy using legal technicalities, perhaps that could serve as a guide?

*** Clerk

[garyk]

*** Clerk, Thanks for posting the AdminRule citation -- that is a very interesting, and as you point out, suggests a legal strategy based on enforcing 'optimum'.

As a side-note on strategies. Over the years, during the public angling regulation procedure, from time to time, various county commisioners and legislators would intervene, usually to torpedo some regulation they percieved as 'reducing opportunity' meaning one of their constituents would be selling less nightcrawlers if a water become artificials-only or C&R.

My point being, that it seems NSIA nor anyone else has gotten a single politico to weigh in on the side of recreational anglers. I wonder why this is?

You also have to wonder why the NSIA member businesses like FishermanMarineSupply don't try to organize their customers by distributing literature, petitions, post-cards, etc?

Finally, you're exactly right about pre-determined outcomes. If you wait until the meetings to lobby, you've generally lost the opportunity to prevail.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

garyk

Your question about why the politico’s have not weighed in on the side of recreational anglers is perhaps an easy one to answer. How much money did sports fishermen contribute to political campaigns last election or the one before that? very close to ZERO. The real political clout comes from Money or Votes. If, as sport fishermen, we cannot organize well enough to provide a definable block of votes, we must be able to funnel money into the campaigns of sympathetic officials.

Unfortunately the amounts needed would be out of reach of the average sport fishermen. See links:

http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/...dcontribs.html

http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/getting.html

As to why stores do not try to organize their customers it is simple, retail sales and politics do not mix. Retailers cannot afford to offend anyone, it is the central axiom of dealing with the public.

*** Clerk

[David Johnson]

NSIA does have paid lobbyist in the state capitals and in Washinton DC.

Also, I beleive they do do a lot of meetings "behind the scenes" before there are any public meetings.

I think they are doing a lot more than you guys know about, that's all.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Yes NSIA does a lot of work behind the scenes, and as Sports Fishermen we should be grateful for all the hard work that they do. I am sorry if I appear to be critical of their methods but as I have tried to point out NSIA is limited as to how much it can do because of it’s sponsors. We cannot let only NSIA fight for our rights. We must be willing to take an interest in what is happening and try to do something ourselves. It is easy to say, “all I want to do is fish”, but what will happen if we let commercial and treaty interests take our fishing away? NSIA needs more allies to help in this battle; maybe we fishermen and fisherwomen can help? And I do not mean begging to the Game Commission like orphan children asking for more gruel, but becoming a force to be reckoned with.

NSIA has done good work regarding the Savage Rapids Dam as well as the Snake River dams. Unfortunately, this may have given them a “green-e” or “eco-nut” aura. I support their efforts but I recognize their built in limitations…

*** Clerk

[garyk]

Thanks *** Clerk for that link - I'd never seen it before, a useful site.

Anyway, I did not notice a GillNetsForever PAC, or CommercialFishermanForTotalDomination PAC, so maybe their contributions aren't so much? So then why are they dominating the issue?

I'm fully aware of the power of money, but in this instance, maybe sportsfisherman just aren't asking their Legislator to weigh-in? I recall the Dave McTeague and Larry Sowa used to get involved on behalf of fisherman.

I'm represented by Bill Witt and fishing just isn't an issue with him.

I respectfully disagree with you about retailers not getting involved with politics. The timber industry never hesitated to put the arm on local businesses to show support for them. And in the case of specialty retailers like FMS, sportsfisherman are their customers and the ones being impacted by this. It seems unlikely that any sports are going to say -- "No by god, I want a short springer season so the gillnetters can get as many as possible and I'm gonna boycott this store for advocating sportfishing".

Back to money, it is surprising that there is not a sportfishing PAC, since there are PACs for most industries and causes.

[Mike Gilchrist]

There are not many sportfishing PAC's because there are not many sportfishing groups that can legally have PAC's. NSIA could, RFA does, Marine Trade Assoc probably does, but most of the sportfishing groups are conservation groups meaning that they are 501C3 non-profit, meaning that they are a charity and they would loose their non-profit status if they tried to have a PAC.

[garyk]

Mike,

I'm quite familiar with this situation and the legalities involved in 501-c-3's.

The solution that is widely used (from conservation organizations to religeous groups) is that the PAC is set up as a seperate corporate entity (501c6?). You can have overlapping boards of directors, share the same building, etc. The finances DO have to be kept separate. And, of course, the 501c3 resources can't be used to advance the PAC's partisan lobbying efforts.

In the early 1990's the core group of Oregon Trout folks did form, what I think was called, Fish PAC but for various reasons it sort of languished and never achieved its goal.

PAC's are certainly a worthwhile strategy, but another simpler one is for anglers to develop a relationship with their state legistlators, offer to put a campaign sign on their lawn, phonebank, et al, and then regularly remind them that sportfishing / clean rivers / resource conservation is important to them.

I hated his politics but loved the quote from a conservative senator -- "In politics, you either take part or get taken apart".

[garyk]

Just received ODFW's Friday, Nov. 16th Commission meeting agenda.

The Willamette/Columbia River Allocation Plan for spring chinook is the last item on the agenda. ODFW's address is:

John Esler, Chairman
ODFW Commissioners
2501 SW First Ave
Portland OR 97207

[Mike Gilchrist]

Garyk,

Interesting work around I was not aware of. But obviously quite a challenge to maintain in the recreational fisheries realm or else it would still be active.

I like your strategy, but unfortunatly see it as being unrealistic. Anglers have proven that they are not willing to consistently make contact on their own. So we dicided to use the postcard/form letter method and then back up those campaigns with direct lobbying. And if its a politician we are talking with, might throw a little money their way as well.

I allways like to see the fisheries political dicussion come up. The commercials, tribes, enviros, pretty much everyone is involved in fisheries has coordinated political approach. Shame on the anglers if we don't play the game too.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Garyk

Thank you for the information regarding the PAC’s (Political Action Committee) and their ability to get around the 501c3 restrictions. I was aware there was a way around the rules but did not know exactly how it was done.
It is apparent from your posts that you are well versed in the nuances of legislative politics. However, you seem to have confused conventional state politics with the self-serving corruption that drives our current Game Commission. It should have been apparent by what the last legislature did to ODFW to try and get the Commission’s attention. Forcing out the ODFW director was a desperate act by a political body that virtually has no control over what the Commission does. Although the legislature can pass laws requiring ODFW to act in a certain way, it is the Game Commission who is ODFW’s rule making body (administrative rules), meaning the commission decides the day to day policy of ODFW. The Legislature passed a plan several years ago called the “Oregon Plan” that promoted the importance of natural fish production and cooperation by all stakeholders in reducing the negative pressures on threatened fish as well as considering economic issues and people. ODFW was supposed to be basically the spearhead of the Oregon Plan but instead chose to ignore it for years. Now the new “legislative favored” ODFW director has set goals to institute the Oregon plan and do what the legislature asks.

I would like to add that the legislature is not perfect. The Oregon legislature is comprised “mostly” of citizen lawmakers with high ideals and absolutely no clue how to restore salmon runs, but then again neither does ODFW. How can the legislature decide what to do when all the “experts” are saying different things? Unfortunately the experts and biologists seem to support what their employers pay them to do.

As to your representative Mr. Witt, you should look more closely at the link I provided and see the dollars he gets from the “Forest Products Industries”. They would be less that exuberant if he were to take an interest in sports fishing issues. (loggers dislike being blamed for endangered salmon)

Yes you do not see any PAC’s with commercial fishing or gill net affiliation but why should their be? These interests are already sitting on the Game Commission Board. There is no need to try to influence legislators; they have all the control they need now

Gary I do have a question for you, how did you get the Commission agenda? I am on the ODFW list-serve and did not see it in today’s releases. Is there a separate list-serve from the commission?

*** Clerk

[garyk]

Hi *** Clerk,

Back now from the rivers and to answer your last question about receiving the ODFW agenda -- I get it the old fashioned way, my US Mail. Funny that I would recieve it before you folks on the listserv would.

Your comment about self-serving corruption is certainly an interesting one and probably warrants its own thread. You're no doubt aware that there is an inherant conflict of interest with the Commissioners, with regards to perserving and maximizing recreational fisheries, as the current enabling statutes (I think that's what they're called) state that ranching, commercial fishing, and forestry interests have to be represented on the Commission.

Conversely, there is no requirement for fisheries advocates to be on the Board of Forestry or Board of Agriculture.