Governor Appoints 3 New F & W Commissioners

[Don Wittenberger]

The Washington Fish and Game Commission consists of 9 members appointed by the governor to 6-year terms. The new members, appointed to terms expiring on Dec. 31, 2014, and their curriculum vitaes are:

David Jennings of Olympia has a B.S. in forest resources from the University of Georgia and an M.P.H. (master of public health) from the University of Oklahoma. He works for the state Department of Health's Division of
Environmental Health, where he was the water protection program manager. He has served as president of the Gifford Pinchot Task Force and the Black Hills Audubon Society.

Rollie Schmitten of Lake Chelan has a degree in forest management from Washington State University with an emphasis on fish and wildlife. He is a former Cashmere city councilman, Chelan County port commissioner, state representative, and director of the former state Department of Fisheries (prior to its merger into WDFW). He also was director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service's Northwest Region, then NMFS director, then NOAA Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. Schmitten participated in negotiations of international agreements involving several environmental issues.

Brad Smith of Bellingham is dean of Western Washington University's Huxley College of Environmental Studies. He previously was director of EPA's Office of Environmental Education. Smith also has extensive international experience with environmental issues. He was a Fulbright Scholar, a research fellow for Environment Canada and the Canadian Fish and Wildlife Service, and serves on the U.S. Information Agency's International Scholars Program.

So, what's my take on these appointments? First of all, there's enough brass here to sink a navy. All three have public agency management experience, two of them at very senior levels. All three also have solid academic credentials. My initial impression is these appointments have "salmon recovery" written all over them. I don't argue with that, per se. Preserving what's left of our state's anadromous fish runs, and enhancing them if possible, is -- and should be -- our state government's highest environmental and public resource management priority.

But does every appointment to the F & W Commission need to have this single-minded focus? What's missing from these individuals' otherwise impressive credentials is any apparent connection to the average Joe and Jane who likes to go hunting or fishing. Sport hunters and anglers pay license fees that provide about 30% of WDFW's operating budget, yet these groups historically have had little or no direct representation on the Commission, and these appointments appear to continue the long tradition by Washington governors of appointing non-hunters and non-anglers to the commission that runs hunting and fishing in this state.

We can hope these intelligent and well-educated individuals will be receptive to the issues and concerns of our state's growing legion of warmwater anglers. We can hope they won't fall prey to "OMIGOD THEY'RE GONNA EAT ALL THE SALMON" knee-jerkism, with respect to tiger muskies and other warmwater species. The way I see it, as salmon and steelhead fishing opportunities continue to decline for our state's citizens, the warmwater species are picking up a lot of the slack, and therefore these fisheries deserve support at the policy level and a reasonable commitment of resources at the management level.

I want salmon and steelhead to thrive in our state waters as much as anyone else does. But the fact of the matter is, the Columbia River dams built in the last century converted that once free-flowing, cold river into a series of warmwater reservoirs that are good habitat for warmwater fish. Even if it were possible to hate walleyes and bass out of existence in these reservoirs, that wouldn't make the Columbia a free-flowing river again nor would it return the river's habitat to what it once was. As for tiger muskies, they are stocked exclusively in landlocked lakes not accessible to anadromous fish. Tiger muskies simply aren't a threat to salmon or steelhead, but can we feel confident the commission understands that, if the commission is composed exclusively of salmon experts focused on salmon recovery who have little or no interest in sport fishing?

Even though last winter's firing of the WDFW director, this spring's dismantling of WDFW's warmwater program, and these new appointments all point to intensified focus on salmon recovery, impliedly to the exclusion of other constituencies and programs, I'm going to try really hard to be optimistic. I'll give them a chance, and you should too. All we ask is they understand the programs that are important to us, listen to our concerns, and make reasonable policy and agency resource allocation decisions. We don't get much in terms of the overall agency budget, and we're not asking for more than we get now. The tiger muskie program costs about $160,000 a year out of an agency budget amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If, as WDFW says, tiger muskies are targeted by 16,000 anglers, those folks are paying over $300,000 a year in license fees. All we want is for the stocking to continue, and for this fishery to be managed in a way that conserves the very limited number of tiger muskies available to anglers in our state's waters. That's asking for very little, and is in no way in competition or conflict with the larger objective of saving the salmon.

[DougShields.com]

Well written and balanced Don. My fears parallel yours with the possible salmon focus. I may not be as willing to give them a fair shot early on, but "hope" I am wrong on that count.

[YellowBear]

Don, you and I have had our spats from time to time but I have to agree with all that you posted.
With the warmwater program being dismantled, what are your expectations for the future of our warmwater fisheries at this time?
We have seen a decline in warmwater species for many years and now that they need our help more than ever, we drop the program.

[Don Wittenberger]

YB, I have only limited information at this time, and hope to get a clearer picture in coming weeks. The next IFPAG meeting is Aug. 1 and maybe I'll learn something there. Here's what I know so far:

The new warmwater manager (to replace Steve Jackson, who retired March 31) is Brian Edie, who formerly managed WDFW's oil spill prevention program.
Field biology, i.e. lake studies, is being cut way back and the biologists who have been doing this work are being reassigned to other duties.
Trout production at hatcheries is being cut way back, but so far I haven't heard of any changes in hatchery rearing of warmwater species.

I get the impression that in this era of limited resources, WDFW is focusing on anadromous fish, and the warmwater fisheries will be even more neglected than in the past. I have some concern about whether management changes and reorganization will result in not only a shifting of attention and resources away from warmwater fish but perhaps outright hostility to warmwater species at WDFW's policy and decision-making levels. In other words, I'm worried that pro-salmon, anti-warmwater constituencies may be gaining more power. However, this is still difficult to assess, and should be regarded as a tentative impression rather than a conclusion at this time.

The warmwater fisheries do have a certain amount of protection. First of all, the portion of fishing license fee revenue that goes for warmwater enhancement is mandated by statute to be spent only on warmwater fisheries, so WDFW can't legally shift that funding to salmon or water quality or other non-warmwater programs. Second, bass and walleye are not only self-sustaining but thriving in the Columbia system, and no matter how much some folks may hate those fish, no amount of hostile attitude or adverse policymaking can make them go away. The fact is, the dams changed a cold free-flowing river into a series of warm lakes that are ideal habitat for those species, and short of tearing down all the Columbia River dams, nobody can get rid of the bass and walleyes in the Columbia no matter how much they'd like to.

So, we'll continue to have warmwater fisheries in Washington. Where fewer resources, less staffing, and policy decisions will impact us most is in things like electroshocking surveys and other information collection, and staffing of services to the angling public. A couple of specific examples is, the Pend O'Reilles River pike survey has been postponed, which means a delay in getting WDFW to formulate a management policy and a set of regulations for that fishery, and I'm told that warmwater staffing for all of western Washington has been reduced to only 2 people.

As I find out more about how this is developing, I'll post information in this forum.

[YellowBear]

Don.
I appreciate the information.
It sounds like we are going to have a tough row to hoe.

[geljockey]

...means a delay in getting WDFW to formulate a management policy and a set of regulations for that fishery, and I'm told that warmwater staffing for all of western Washington has been reduced to only 2 people...

Don, are you talking about field or regional personnel?

I've been told that for western Washington there are two full time biologists and one part time biologist for Region 6, one full time biologist for Region 4, and a part time technician for Region 5.