By the end of 1999, enforcement actions by NOAA Fisheries in the Methow Valley helped to bring 32 of 33 problematic irrigation ditches into compliance. On the other hand, Methow Valley Irrigation District still hasn't agreed to a remediation plan and local resistance to regulation – and the ESA in particular – remains strong.

As the authors of an excellent new case study published by Washington State University put it: "High compliance rates were achieved, but at a high social cost."

I'm in no position to sit in judgment about the enforcement actions taken by NOAA Fisheries in 1999, but I doubt that any of us want to see Methow Valley become the model for resolving conflicts over difficult natural resource issues.

Stronger partnerships with local interests – earlier in the process – would no doubt have helped. And my hope is that the proposed Joint Policy Consensus Center at WSU and UW can be a place to find common ground on tough issues like this one.

Second, Trapping Initiative.

Many of the challenges we face – including the one over Methow irrigation practices – have a distinctly local flavor, requiring an understanding of local resources and local concerns. Others, however, have less to do with local resources than with shifting currents in public attitudes.

Initiative 713, the so-called "anti-trapping initiative" approved by state voters in 2000, is an example of this second type of challenge which we, as resource managers, face with increasing frequency.

As journalist David Broder noted in his recent book, "Democracy Derailed," there were 226 conservation-related measured placed on local ballots throughout the United States in 1998 – a 50 percent increase over 1996. Of those 226 measures, an astounding 72% -- nearly three out of every four – were approved.

In one of the sillier examples, Broder described how an initiative appeared on the local ballot in Beverly Hills that would have forced clothing stores to tag furs with a disclaimer stating that they were "made with fur from animals that may have been killed by electrocution, gassing, neck breaking, poisoning, clubbing, stomping or drowning."

Another initiative in San Francisco would have made household pets wards of the state – eliminating personal ownership. Both initiatives failed.

Initiative 713, which bans the use of body-gripping traps, didn't go to those extremes. But it DID pass, and it has presented considerable challenges for many state citizens and resources alike.

• From the start, there was confusion. Sponsors said the initiative was not intended to ban body-gripping traps for moles. But since the initiative didn't specifically exempt mole traps, the Attorney General's Office has advised my department that they are included in the ban.
• While I'll admit that WDFW hasn't "cracked down" on the use of mole traps, we have received numerous calls from neighbors who want to "turn in" their neighbors. There's clearly something wrong with a public policy that turns neighbor against neighbor over something like trapping moles.
• The main problem, however, is that animal-damage complaints have picked up substantially since the initiative was approved. Flooding caused by beaver dams is a big problem. Under the law, we can approve special trapping permits on private land, but not on public land. As a result, a lot of public parks are getting flooded out.

In response to these and other problems, the Legislature is considering several bills this year to amend – or in one case, repeal – the initiative. And, I think that legislation to amend the initiative will be successful, but it has been a highly divisive process.

I don't know whether initiative sponsors would be amenable to the kind of mediation services envisioned for the new Consensus Center, but it would be great to have a chance to resolve these issues BEFORE a ballot measure becomes law. If there's common ground on issues like these, I'd sure like to find it.

Despite these stories, we can also point to examples where we have been – or or are being – successful.

First, Cooperative Compliance Initiative.

One that all of you will be discussing a great deal is the Cooperative Compliance Initiative, launched in 2000 by my Department's enforcement staff under the direction of then-Capt. Mike Bireley.

The idea behind the Cooperative Compliance Initiative was to pursue compliance with state fish screening laws in the Walla Walla basin by using alternative approaches to punitive prosecution.

In other words, the emphasis was on the carrot, not the stick – some would argue a considerably different approach from the one employed in the Methow.

While it was made clear to landowners that the stick was still in the drawer, it was also made clear to them that government wasn't there to issue an ultimatum or a Go To Jail card.

It was there to provide help in the form of technical and other assistance and possible cost-sharing assistance.

As you know, the results have been impressive, with other government entities and legislators teaming up with personnel from my Department and private property owners to make cooperative compliance a reality.

Indeed, work is now underway to complete the upgrade of hundreds of surface water diversions, and new fish screens have been installed on dozens of previously non-compliant sites.

In addition, minimum in stream water flows in major portions of the Walla Walla River have been established in a settlement reached by three irrigation districts in Oregon and Washington and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Cooperative Compliance Initiative is a prime example of how collaborative approaches can find solutions to what have sometimes seemed to be intractable issues. But it's hardly the ONLY example.

Second, Forest Practices.

In the arena of forest practices, the new approach to forest management advanced by the Forest and Fish legislation of 1999 is succeeding precisely because it recognizes everyone's concerns – but more importantly leaves room to address them.

At the very heart of that accord is the principle of "adaptive management" – a rejection of the rigid one-size-fits-all policy that preceded it. That simply wasn't going to fly with forest owners, who were being asked to do far more to protect listed species of fish and wildlife than ever before.

Based on that principle of adaptive management, the new law:

• Allows for adjustments in forestry rules as new scientific information becomes available.
• Allows small landowners to submit alternative plans to achieve the same level of protection.
• And calls on WDFW to provide one-on-one assistance to forest landowners who need help in achieving compliance.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was a key participant in the original negotiations over the Forests and Fish Agreement and has played an active role in implementing it.

Sure, there have been some bumps in the road (no pun intended) over road-abandonment plans for small land-owners and other issues. Fortunately, the new law is flexible enough that we can work those things out.

But the key thing is that – just a few years after implementation of the law – we've seen MAJOR improvements in habitat for listed species and forest-land owners have a viable way to ascertain compliance under the ESA. Under the new law:

• Stream buffers have been expanded on 60,000 miles of fish-bearing waters in our state.
• Landowners have removed more than 400 blocking culverts.
• And WDFW scientists are currently participating in more than 50 research projects specifically designed to determine where forestry rules should be further modified to improve protection for listed species or safely eased to provide greater leeway to private landowners.

None of these things would have been possible if participants in the Forests and Fish agreement had not recognized the necessity of flexibility and compromise. We saw the opportunity and we took it – and I think everyone is in a much better position as a result.

Third, State/Tribal Cooperation.

Nowhere, perhaps, has that approach of patience and persistence paid off more than in our ongoing relationship with treaty Indian tribes, our fisheries co-managers under the law. And, this working relationship is one that I am most proud of!

I don't think I need to recount for anyone here the "bad old days" of the pre-Boldt era, when the Department and the tribes were constantly at odds.

We may still have our differences over particular issues, but today the Department and the Tribes work more as allies as problem solvers rather than as adversaries.

Nowhere, perhaps, is that more evident than at the annual "North of Falcon" negotiations, where ocean salmon-fishing seasons are set.

Fifteen years ago, these negotiating sessions were packed with high drama, as each side jockeyed for position. They were hard fought , pitch battles where most left the process mad and bitter. Today, we have ongoing communication with the tribes throughout the year to resolve issues and find common ground before the North of Falcon meetings even get under way.

Just last week, for example, my staff met with tribal representatives to work out differences over a chinook selective fishery we are proposing in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. That's a subject of some concern for some tribes, but I think we're actually getting very close to an agreement.

Perhaps an even better indication of how far we co-managers have come over the years is the joint conservation plans the Department and the Tribes completed in 2000 to aid the recovery of two salmon stocks listed under the ESA.

The Comprehensive Chinook Plan for Puget Sound and the Summer Chum Initiative for Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are truly monuments to State/Tribal cooperation.

Establishing maximum harvest rates and designing protection strategies in those areas would have presented a daunting task even without tribal participation. Reaching agreement on those and hundreds of other issues addressed in the two conservation plans is nothing short of remarkable.

We are also cooperating in submitting joint harvest and hatchery management plans to NOAA for approval under the ESA. Joint efforts on defending the state from lawsuits is another example of cooperation that works.

Conclusion

I don't mean to suggest by these examples that the Department of Fish and Wildlife has everything under control or that the challenges of managing our state's natural resources are all in the past.

That is hardly the case. In fact, I think it's safe to say that our biggest challenges are still ahead of us.

One of the biggest, of course, is salmon recovery, and the need to keep the existing collaborative process in place – and productive – as we move forward with recovery.

In only a few short years, we have made tremendous progress on many fronts:

• A new network of collaborative local watershed recovery groups is now in place, working on hundreds of stream-restoration projects throughout the state.
• Fisheries are becoming increasingly selective, targeting only those hatchery and naturally-spawning stocks that can bear harvest pressure.
• Hatchery practices are under intense review under the federally sponsored HSRG, and more than a third of our facilities are now actively engaged in wild-salmon recovery.

Still, much work remains to be done. And the jury is still out on whether we will have the collective will to work out the many thorny issues involved in recovering depressed salmon stocks at a time when our state's human population is growing by 1 million people per year.

Skagit Valley issues ...

Fish-allocation issues ...

Public safety cougar removals ...

Control of animal-borne diseases ... CWD or West Nile Virus ...

... To be successful in meeting these and other challenges, we will need to step outside our usual and accustomed roles.

We will need to step outside our roles as enforcement officer, biologist or manager and look at the issues before us from the perspective of an orchardist, dairy farmer or developer or some other constituent.

We can no longer afford to wear one hat.

We will need to stop being afraid of controversy and open the tent to all our constituents.

And when we say we want public involvement, we will have to mean it — not just schedule a public meeting, write a few things down on a flip chart and call it a day.

I believe a collaborative approach embraces all of these elements.

I believe that as human populations continue to grow along with the demands on our fish, wildlife and other natural resource, a collaborative approach to problem solving will become even more imperative.

That is why I applaud the efforts of the Natural Resource Leadership Academy and your work to promote a collaborative approach to problem solving.

Now more than ever, we need what you have to offer. And I urge you to keep it up.