My report from the ODFW Commission meeting, 2/11/05, in Troutdale, OR, regarding the NOAA-F Biological Opinion allowing for a 6% bycatch rate on ESA-listed Columbia River basin wild winter steelhead:
First, a hearty thanks to all of the members of the Oregon sportfishing and conservation communities who showed up to testify...for reasons I'll get to next, I think it really did help a lot more than it does at the Washington Commission meetings.
The Oregon Commission.
These guys have got it down...and I'm not talking about making the right decision in this case...it was still 4-3, which is not a home run in anybody's book. I'm talking about their demeanor, and the way that Marla Rae runs the show.
When you go up to testify, you hand them 20 copies of your testimony, and it is passed out to the Commission members, staff members, to the press, and a couple left overs for their file of who spoke, and what they spoke about.
A couple of the Commissioners had a hole punch right there at their seats, and punched holes in the packets and put them into folders. As you went through your testimony, they followed along, took notes, and generally looked like they were paying attention to what you were saying. When you were done, Chair Rae asked the Commission members if they had any questions for you...and they very often did. They'd ask you to clear up a question they might have had, and since the testimony you hand in is sometimes more complete and broader than what you actually have time to testify about, they refer to things in your written testimony that you didn't have time to talk about. (I spoke about run timing and disproportionate impacts, and had several charts and graphs from WDFW, ODFW, and NOAA-F documents attached...Commissioner Smith was right in front of me, and had unattached the charts and placed them next to the written materials, and was actually referring to the charts as I was speaking about them...as were others).
If your testimony was factually different than that which a different person had testified to, they may ask you about the differences. If it isn't easily explained, they may ask the other person to come back up and have them try to explain it. If your testimony raises a question that a previous testifier may have the answer to, they'll ask if that person is still there and ask them the question then...and they actually have questions and comments, because they are taking notes and referring to the written testimony as they go along.
They are sticklers for protocol, as they should be, but are happy to joke around with the testifiers and each other, if it is not inappropriate. Every single person addressed them very respectfully, and they in turn treated every single testifier respectfully. The Chair specifically thanked me for driving down from Seattle, and noted that there were four different Washington organizations testifying, and that they were grateful to have Washington's input into their decision.
She joked that it was the most Washington organizations that had been at one of their meetings, even though it was just one person (I spoke for the Wild Steelhead Coalition, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Puget Sound Anglers, and the Willapa Anglers).
They had three tables all along the side of the room for the press, which were all full. They had power cords run out to the tables so each of the reporters could plug in their lap tops.
As is usual, the first testimony came from the ODFW staff, who I will also commend here and now. Using the exact same information that the Reg. 5 WDFW staff had, they outlined the proposal, noted the sometimes glaring holes in the proposal, noted the strengths of the proposal, and fielded questions about the holes and strengths with equal aplomb.
When asked about, for example, the lack of information regarding run timing and disporportionate impacts (the same issue I spoke to), they noted that there was a notable lack of that information, but that they hoped to fill in those gaps over this year's fishery.
Did they need to have the extra impacts to get that information? No, of course not. Do they feel that they will have a better handle on it for next year, whether or not they get the extra impacts this year? Yes, but we'll have to collect the data and analyze it first to know for sure.
What are the various pros and cons of going with 2,4,or 6 percent impacts?
We probably don't need six...we can almost assuredly get all of our commercial quota with 4%, but 6% would definitely assure it.
How do you feel about the current 2%? We can probably stay in that most, if not all, of the time, but 4% or 6% would make sure that we don't catch more steelhead than is legally allowable.
They stayed up there and answered questions from all of the Commissioners almost as long as they presented information. They were asking for an increase, but seemed to be honestly stating a preference while at the same time giving unbiased information about all the possibile alternatives to 6%.
At the end, they didn't say "we must have 6%, so that's our recommendation"...they thanked the Commission for their time, and asked for guidance on how to use, if at all, the additional impacts allowed by NOAA-F. When asked about their preference, they said that they'd prefer 4%...but could work with any of the percentages, with varying degrees of success.
All in all, very honest, very straightforward...and not just about their agenda, but about the holes in their data, and their desire not for a particular outcome, but for clear policy guidance on what the Commission's will was.
As public testimony then wore on (and on, and on...), a question came up about the sportfishers' impacts on wild steelhead in the tributaries...and the Commission brought the Department staff back up to answer some questions about it.
What are the impacts? Up to 6%, according to Washington, but we think it's probably closer to 2.4% for the tribs. Thanks from the Commission Chair, and back to their seats.
Lots of sportfishermen testified as to the sportfishing restrictions, reduction in hatchery production, bait and barb restrictions, and retention restrictions that they had endured, though not happily or voluntarily in all situations, at least voluntarily without much of a fight in almost all situations. They spoke about specific habitat projects they had done, and lots of anecdotes about fishing they had done in the affected streams.
At the end, they brought staff back up again, and asked more questions, referring specifically to testimony provided by several members of the conservation community...and the staff pulled out their copies and referred to their own notes to answer the questions. If they didn't have an answer, they said so. If they did, and it contradicted the testimony, they said so, and backed up their points with data and relevant information.
The Commission members all discussed it, for quite a while actually, and a clear, but close, preference to stay at 2% emerged. Englund, not unexpectedly, was amazed that NOAA-F, WDFW, and ODFW had all agreed that 6% would be just fine, and that they were even discussing it...they should just rubber stamp it and move on.
He was the only one who pushed for 6%...the other two "no" votes would not have gone above 4%, though expressed misgivings at even doing that, but were willing to go with it. One Commissioner expressed an opinion that 4% would be fine, but asked more questions, heard more answers, and decided that he, too, would like to stay at 2%.
The Chair asked Director Ball about what he had heard so far, and he said his only question to the Commission is to please give him clear and direct authority, no matter what the percentage is, so that he knows exactly what the will of the Commission is so that he can accurately negotiate on behalf of Oregon at the Columbia River Compact. A fairly informal vote took place, ended at 4-3 to stay at 2%, and that was it. There were a lot of smiling faces in the room, and a few not so smiley...among them Cindy LeFleur, who didn't look happy in the least...she had managed to make a list of names of everyone who testified against the proposal, so she ought to have my name in her little book several times by now!
Please read the next part very carefully...
All four of the Commissioners who voted for 2%, and two of the three who voted for an increase (all but Englund, another big surprise...NOT!) made the same comment...which I will paraphrase here:
First they said that the science is far from clear, no matter what the three scientific staffs say, and that they would like to see all the gaps filled in. Then...
"It looks like we can commercially harvest plenty of fish under any of the percentage rates, and with all the restrictions that sportfishermen have gone through over the years, shorter seasons, less rivers or areas open, bait and lure restrictions, etc., and all of the volunteer work they do for habitat and education, we feel that it would send the wrong message and be a slap in the face to sportsmen to raise the impact levels and put their work and resources into commercial bycatch.
They actually used those words, "wrong message" and "slap in the face"...you can't imagine how refreshing it was to hear decision makers not only care about our opinions, but to actually care about our feelings on the issues, and to be recognized as a group that takes its lumps and keeps on working to restore fish and habitat to our region.
Several quick handshakes, a few words with some reporters, and outta there to the hotel, where I promptly crashed for a few hours.
I'm sure I'll remember more later, but that's probably enough for now!
Fish on...
Todd