Nisqually eats another boat

[James Mello]

Judges need to get elected as well, don't they? :confused: come up with 50 mil in cold cash make a Michael Mooreesque documentardry about Indian genocide of wild steelhead to fund tax free gambling or something. Launch this with an overwhelming ad campaign. Maybe one showing a father and his kid getting skunked at the ol fishing hole. This will swing the popular opinion against boldt. Grease a few politicans to bring it up to a vote. Grease the chain of judges that the issue will fly on and pay for the best attornys money can buy to back you up.

Sound pretty far fetched?

The Tribes, Lumber industry, Mining industry....... are already pros at this game and will be playing the same thing against you. How deep are our pockets? Just deep enough to buy a wood framed house for our wives wearing a gold wedding band who we occasionally take to the casino for a few hands of blackjack on the weekends. :beathead:

Okay, so let's say you do get a local district judge to buy in. Next comes the appeal.... We could then get the next judge up the chain, but ultimately it terminates at judges we don't elect, but are appointed..... Also, where would this money come from? There isn't an organization with enough $$ or clout to pull this off....

Finally, in order for this to happen, you'd also have to come up with a reasonable challenge to the ruling. Even judges that are bought can't ignore case precident or they will come under the scrutiny of their peers. Lots of challenges have been made, all of them have lost. You will then need to find a new angle that hasn't be judged yet... Impossible? No... Easy? No....

-- Cheers
-- James

[Salmo_g]

Unfortunately, a thread about some trees fallen in the Nisqually River has taken a turn to the issue of treaty Indian fishing and fishing rights. I think prior threads pretty well capture the issue. Some of the points of summary are:
1. Treaty rights are the law of the land, upheld in Federal District Court, the 9th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. None of the judges or justices are elected. All are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
2. Whether tribes had diesel boats, nylon nets, or any other technological devices at treaty times is irrelevant.
3. The treaty law applies to fishing in usual & accustomed areas, which pretty much includes any and every water body in the case area, and does not exclude hatchery or introduced fish.
4. Treaties can legally be modified by Congress without the tribes consent. Slade Gorton tried that in the U.S. Senate in the early 1980s and got no where.
5. It turns out that it's a bit more complicated than buying off some judges and Congressmen, but with an infinite budget, it's hypothetically possible; otherwise it's a ranter's fantasy.
6. As much as some people believe the demise and decline of various stocks of fish is due to Indian fishing, not one, repeat, NOT ONE instance has ever been verified. And just the opposite is verified, that is, white society has extirpated over a hundred salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast.

You don't have to like it, but the above, except #5, are the facts.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[Be Jofus G]

1. Treaty rights are the law of the land, upheld in Federal District Court, the 9th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. None of the judges or justices are elected. All are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.


Which means you'd need Haliburton Type money.

[gt]

by impacting the major source of income for current day native americans, casinos, perhaps a message can be sent. boycott their businesses and let'um know why.

boldt is not going to be changed until or unless it goes back into court. my only issue with this situation is how anyone, native americans included, thinks that by decimating an ESA stock their short and long term best interests are being served. the useful, and in mind necessary change, is a simple one, anyone fishing must abide by the same set of rules, no matter your origin.

[Be Jofus G]

SHOOSH, you're white which means you are responsable for the loss of over a hundred salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast. :beathead:

[James Mello]

by impacting the major source of income for current day native americans, casinos, perhaps a message can be sent. boycott their businesses and let'um know why.

boldt is not going to be changed until or unless it goes back into court. my only issue with this situation is how anyone, native americans included, thinks that by decimating an ESA stock their short and long term best interests are being served. the useful, and in mind necessary change, is a simple one, anyone fishing must abide by the same set of rules, no matter your origin.

Totally in agreement, but the unfortunate reality is that the opinion of decimated stocks isn't agreed upon. Great example. Take a look at the WDFW escape requirements for the Queets and compare it to the Quinault Tribe escapment for the Queets. The difference is like 1000 steelhead. The state is set higher than the tribes. You now have a situation where the opinion of one set of trained biologists are in disagreement with another... Who's right? I don't know, but my inclination would be to err on the side of caution. Other folks who have a financial/cerimonial vested interest have a different perspective...

Regardless though, at some point tribes and WDFW are going to have to start to figure this shit out. It's also weird cause the Tulalips seem to have a pretty good relationship (for example) and the Quinaults seem to have a much worse one.... My opinion so don't imply anything by it! :)

[James Mello]

SHOOSH, you're white which means you are responsable for the loss of over a hundred salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast. :beathead:

Well, in some cases I'd take the netting over dams..... Neither are great, but the single biggest impediment to salmon (upstream and down stream) are the major dams on the Columbia. Are they an economic nessecity? Yes. Did the and will they provide the energy needed by the country? Yes. Did they *greatly* impact the salmon and steelhead on the Columbia? Yes.. Were the opposed by the tribes? Yes... Kinda weird how perspective can make somethings a lot more muddied and less black and white....

As for the griping, I totally understand. I don't like the way things are, but the sooner that you accept that Boldt isn't going away, the sooner that you can put your energies into things you *can* change....

-- Cheers
-- James

[Be Jofus G]

I'm not kidding myself and I know that boldt isn't going anywhere. I was attempting to illistrate exacly how close to impossibe it would be to get it tossed out. The thing that really peves me is when someone throws up the fact that white men somehow hold the responsibility for the loss of the fish. I wasn't even born when the damns went up, hell my ancestors weren't even in this country when most of the damns went up. I'd never set foot in this state until 199something and have voted for environmentally friendly candidates since I tunred 18. Now how is that a reason to keep gill nets in water holding ESA listed fish. :confused: I'm going to shaddup now and go boil potatos until they're liquified. Everyone can agrue over what someones great grandfather did until they are blue in the face.

[nomlasder]

Unfortunately, a thread about some trees fallen in the Nisqually River has taken a turn to the issue of treaty Indian fishing and fishing rights. Salmo g.

It was this point I simply backed off. One man's reason is an others idiotcy. It just happens. This is what makes America great.

James, thanks for taking up the debate. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, only compromises balancing historical use and rights, vs current use, vs management of the resource.

One needs to get down to the details. Does the person that set the net across the slough know they may be actually doing harm? If it's not legal, were the authorities notifed, photos taken and sent to the news agencys?

Education and public opinion are powerfull tools.

[James Mello]

It was this point I simply backed off. One man's reason is an others idiotcy. It just happens. This is what makes America great.

James, thanks for taking up the debate. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, only compromises balancing historical use and rights, vs current use, vs management of the resource.

One needs to get down to the details. Does the person that set the net across the slough know they may be actually doing harm? If it's not legal, were the authorities notifed, photos taken and sent to the news agencys?

Education and public opinion are powerfull tools.

It's one of those things that keep reoccuring, and frankly, it's fine that it does. My whole hope is that folks can stop worrying about it and focus on issues we *can* control. The idea of doing net cleanups, is a *good* thing. The idea of enhancing coarse woody debis on a river is a *good* thing. If we can get the energy focused on this, we'll be a lot better off...

Personally speaking, I used to be a ranter until I was educated on the matter. Once I figured out that the law is only fair depending on your perspective, I stopped wasting my time on things that were out of my control. Plenty of other legislative/voting action can be taken rather than wasting time and resources on things that can't....

[Jon Borcherding]

Boldt:confused:

But:

0 X 50% = 0

JonB

[James Mello]

Boldt:confused:

But:

0 X 50% = 0

JonB

No disagreement, but the Boldt decision is 50% decided by the NA nations, and 50% by us... We can do what we will with our fish, so at least that parts in our boat...

[Jon Borcherding]

As much as some people believe the demise and decline of various stocks of fish is due to Indian fishing, not one, repeat, NOT ONE instance has ever been verified. And just the opposite is verified, that is, white society has extirpated over a hundred salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast.

So you don't believe that the netting that takes place in the Nisqually, and the abandoned nets that remain there, have caused any decline in the steelhead or salmon stocks?

Your attitude seems to be, "we can't prove it harms the fish and even if we could we can't do anything about it anyway, so let's not talk about it because everybody gets upset".

Okay Jon, let's play this game. How do you stop the NA from netting? Ideas? Suggestions? No one doubts that it's hard on the fish, but seriously, if you want to stop it, how do you propose that it happens?

Public awareness. First we have to be willing to discuss it. We have to at least agree that it's a problem. It is a problem isn't it? Apparently we have trouble reaching any kind of consensus here about that question. This leads me to believe that this is the wrong forum for me to be discussing this. I didn't start this thread with this discussion in mind. I was just so damn disgusted by what I saw that I couldn't keep it to myself.
Today I decided to avoid being disgusted so I didn't fish the Nisqually. Instead I went to Pt Defiance with an 11' mooching rod and a knucklebuster. I caught a nice 15 lb. hatchery king and 2 unclipped kings. I bonked the hatchery fish and released the natives so they can head for the Nisqually.
Bye bye fish.

JonB

[James Mello]

Public awareness. First we have to be willing to discuss it. We have to at least agree that it's a problem. It is a problem isn't it? Apparently we have trouble reaching any kind of consensus here about that question. This leads me to believe that this is the wrong forum for me to be discussing this. I didn't start this thread with this discussion in mind. I was just so damn disgusted by what I saw that I couldn't keep it to myself.


That's the crux of the matter. I consider some tribes to be problematic, and others to be assets. The Tulalups for instance have moved their fishery for hatchery fish to a time when most wilds aren't present. They operate their own hatchery and fin clip everything. There are still some people disgruntled at how they do things, and there will always be.

Another perspective on this, the nets in the Nisqually. It *may* be a problem but without a reasonably accurate count or data model to use, anecdotal evidence of "I've seen fish in the net" doesn't hold any water in the scientific or legal community. It's an emotional answer to a largely logical problem. I don't refute the claim, as I trust you. But taken to another person who *doesn't*, you need to be able to back up your statement either with facts or a body of evidence that supports the claim.

With all of that crap said, I do side with you for the most part that netting is part of the issue. The major problems for fish come down to the 4 h's. Harvest, habitat, hydro, hatcherys. Of those, the harvest aspect is the single most visible to fishermen, because we are usually on the water when we see it. BUT netting is not the biggest issue related to the decline of our native stocks of fish. All 4 H's have a cuplability in this, and the balance of it may be related to harvest and hydro.

As for public education on the matter, what specifically is the aim? To overturn the Boldt decision? It's a 9th circuit court decision and is a federal level. Very little if anything can be done, unless a reasonble case can be brought forth on how this division is wrong. Simply stating it isn't fair, and having a large petition won't change the ruling.

Here's my take on it: Frankly I don't like a lot of the netting, but using law, our ancestors tried to screw some people over, and the plan backfired in the 1970's. The upshot is, those folks are getting no more than what was promised by our Federal goverment as a right. This is the source of the 50% allocation. Overturning the decision will take more than public outcry, as the right to fish and hunt in the usual and accustomed places was a right that was paid for in full by the NA tribes in the past. It seems shitty right now, but let's face it, they were the ones forced onto the res, and we're the ones who did it.

My general idea is to consider they tribes for what they are, equal partners in a comanaged fishery. If we don't like what is going on, the BEST we can do is influence their policy through any number of ways. Most of the NA folks I know *really don't* want the fish to go away, but also don't want to surrender their rights. Since we can only influence their decisions, we should focus on our side of the 50% and spend our energies their. If we have a tip top situation, then *MAYBE* we could say that the tribes aren't living up to their co-managed status and *MAYBE* there could be a reasonable case brought to court for the tribes to change their ways. As such, we've got a LONG way to go before that happens.


Today I decided to avoid being disgusted so I didn't fish the Nisqually. Instead I went to Pt Defiance with an 11' mooching rod and a knucklebuster. I caught a nice 15 lb. hatchery king and 2 unclipped kings. I bonked the hatchery fish and released the natives so they can head for the Nisqually.
Bye bye fish.

JonB

Great! I've been hearing reports on the rezzie silvers being in town, but I didn't realize that 15lb kings were around. Most folks I know are hitting blackmouth in the 5lb range. Double nice for you though! :)

[gt]

i agree that boldt is not going to be revisited anytime soon. that said:

- who is counting the 50%?
- where is the catch publicly reported?
- is the public aware of the 'kill everything' actions of the NA net fishery?
- does the public understand that bank to bank nets destroy everything returning?
- did you stop visiting your local casino once this thread started?
- have you told anyone about this?


and finally, just how can anyone justify the killing of ESA fish! i fail to understand how anyone thinks this taking is in the short or long range best interests of anyone. so, why aren't the tribal elders stepping up and doing something? afterall, the tribal PR machine wants all of us to believe they are the stewards of our environment and all things living. lets simply hold them to their own PR standard.

anyone have some tribal email addresses we can address our concerns too??

[James Mello]

i agree that boldt is not going to be revisited anytime soon. that said:

- who is counting the 50%?
- where is the catch publicly reported?
- is the public aware of the 'kill everything' actions of the NA net fishery?
- does the public understand that bank to bank nets destroy everything returning?
- did you stop visiting your local casino once this thread started?
- have you told anyone about this?


and finally, just how can anyone justify the killing of ESA fish! i fail to understand how anyone thinks this taking is in the short or long range best interests of anyone. so, why aren't the tribal elders stepping up and doing something? afterall, the tribal PR machine wants all of us to believe they are the stewards of our environment and all things living. lets simply hold them to their own PR standard.

anyone have some tribal email addresses we can address our concerns too??

Some of these should be addressed by Smalama or Salmo_g, but the idea that a net is a catch everything kinda of deal isn't quite right. There are net gap restrictions for various fisheries, and while they are effective at catching most everything, they do have some rules and restrictions on them.

As for the tribal elders/tribal goverment, I wished that some representative could come on board and discuss this. Hopefully if something like this happened, they would be treated with respect rather than distain.... GT based on proximity, do you know of any tribal members in your area that could speak on the matter? Perspective would be good....

[gt]

sorry to say, my only conversation with the elwha co-manager was a total disappointment. he was only interested in hatchery fish for the taking by tribal members. the s'klallam group is currently into unsustainable harvest of dungness crab! they have floated the notion of a net pen in sequim bay and i have already started beating the drum for 'not here' and will continue to monitor that story.

isn't there a representative for the WA tribes who typically does the public presentations on behalf of all of them? franks?????

[Jon Borcherding]

isn't there a representative for the WA tribes who typically does the public presentations on behalf of all of them? franks?????

Billy Frank
Tribal fishing rights activist famous for poaching or activism, depending on your perspective.
Good Luck.

JonB

[gt]

thanks, billy franks is the person i was thinking about. here is an email address to get us started:

lfarmer@psat.wa.gov

apparently the contact person for the puget sound clean up group. i asked her to pass along the email to mr franks to see if he would care to respond to ALL of us. you may choose to express your own points of view via email as well.

[James Mello]

thanks, billy franks is the person i was thinking about. here is an email address to get us started:

lfarmer@psat.wa.gov

apparently the contact person for the puget sound clean up group. i asked her to pass along the email to mr franks to see if he would care to respond to ALL of us. you may choose to express your own points of view via email as well.


Maybe the better way to go about this would be to set up a forum where questions can be submitted? We can then weed out the obviously inflammotory attacks/useless comments, and keep the ones that may be touchy but still need some answers....

[gt]

i have a reply from the gentleman from the indian fishing commission who works with mr franks inviting me to give him a call to discuss this matter.

if any one has specific questions you would like me to pose, please post away. i will wait a couple of days to insure you have sufficient time to make your posts.

of course, i will report back as well.

[James Mello]

Lemme start a new thread for this. I think this will be a pretty good forum to get some education out to folks as well as giving some good feedback to the tribes... BTW, I sent a PM to you about the subject... Lemme know if this accurately portrays what you are trying to do...

[Salmo_g]

Jon,

As much as it apparently pains you, no, I don't have any evidence that the gillnetting performed by the Nisqually Tribe is causing any, repeat ANY, decline in Nisqually River salmon or steelhead. The Nisqually is deliberately managed at an unsustainable harvest rate for chinook salmon for the simple reason that the preponderance of the chinook are of hatchery origin, and originate from the Tribe's hatchery. Surplus hatchery chinook escape the intensive gillnet fishery and spawn naturally, making an unknown contribution to total chinook salmon productivity. The hatchery currently maintains a strong chinook run.

The Nisqually chum salmon run is either entirely or predominately of natural origin. If it was being over-fished at an unsustainable rate, then it would show a declining trend. Last I heard, the Nisqually chum run is meeting spawning escapment goals and maintains its sustainable status.

I really know nothing about the Nisqually coho salmon run.

Nisqually steelhead are in the toilet. The river has been closed to steelhead fishing since 1993. While some steelhead are poached, apparently by both treaty and non-treaty fishermen, there isn't enough evidence to even circumstantially lay the blame for the run's status at the feet of fishing. All Puget Sound steelhead runs are returning at rates below their mean and certainly below maximum smolt to adult survival rates. All indications suggest the causitive factor is early marine survival. With the Nisqually River being near the southern terminus of Puget Sound, it's more than reasonable to infer that it may suffer the consequence of this factor more than rivers further north, since they have more early marine rearing area to travel through. If you follow the PS steelhead run status, generally the health, as indicated by survival, is better in the north sound than the south sound rivers.

You've entierely misconstrued my attitude. My attitude and my fish management philosophy is to seek the truth and go where it leads me. I do this employing only logic and critical thinking skills, as absent of emotion as I can possibly maintain. It's essentially less exciting, almost to the point of boredom for some, but it consistently yields the most accurate assessments. Let's float the Nisqo and talk some.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[Jon Borcherding]

As much as it apparently pains you, no, I don't have any evidence that the gillnetting performed by the Nisqually Tribe is causing any, repeat ANY, decline in Nisqually River salmon or steelhead.
What research has been conducted to determine if tribal gillnetting has had a detrimental effect on the Nisqually's wild fish stocks? When was this research completed and who funded it?

Nisqually steelhead are in the toilet. The river has been closed to steelhead fishing since 1993. While some steelhead are poached, apparently by both treaty and non-treaty fishermen, there isn't enough evidence to even circumstantially lay the blame for the run's status at the feet of fishing.

I'm not laying the blame for declining steelhead runs at the feet of tribal gillnetting. I'm saying that if the runs are "in the toilet", as you put it, then perhaps it's time to take a look at the practices of the only user group that is still allowed to kill steelhead on the Nisqually River and that group is the tribe, is it not?

Lastly, I would be delighted to float the river with you any time. Two or three days notice is usually all I need.

JonB

[flybill]

Lemme start a new thread for this. I think this will be a pretty good forum to get some education out to folks as well as giving some good feedback to the tribes... BTW, I sent a PM to you about the subject... Lemme know if this accurately portrays what you are trying to do...
iagree

Or can't we at least change the name of this thread! It started off as a note about safe floating on the Nisqually and has taken on a life of it's own.

The sad thing, is this topic has been covered again and again and again on the board. What will affect netting practices most? The fish, when they're gone then we can gaurentee the netting will stop! Or until there is enough political pressure to overturn Boldt..

[Jon Borcherding]

iagree

Or can't we at least change the name of this thread! It started off as a note about safe floating on the Nisqually and has taken on a life of it's own.

The sad thing, is this topic has been covered again and again and again on the board. What will affect netting practices most? The fish, when they're gone then we can gaurentee the netting will stop! Or until there is enough political pressure to overturn Boldt..

http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/board/showthread.php?t=41243
Now we're over here on this thread slugging it out and, yes, this topic has been covered before. Apparently there is still quite a bit of interest. Some of us believe that the netting is a problem. It seems like the biologists don't agree with us. One thing is certain, we won't change anything by ignoring the issue.

JonB

[Salmo_g]

Jon,

So far no one has suggested doing scientific research on tribal gillnetting to answer what is essentially not a scientific question. Biologically speaking, fishery managers mainly care that sufficient spawners of each species escape to spawn and maintain fish runs. The surplus fish that are harvested from a population are just as dead regardless of the method of harvest. That's one reason why you won't find any fish biologists around here who have the kind of problems with treaty Indian gillnetting that many sport fishermen seem to - because the reasons are emotional rather than biological, provided spawning escapement goals are being achieved.

The Nisqually Tribe has no net fishery targeting steelhead in the Nisqually River so far as I know. They do have an extensive chum salmon fishery that in a good year may overlap some early returning wild steelhead. A handful are caught in that fishery, and as you might begin to expect here now, no fishery biologist believes that imperils the population. It sure doesn't do it any good, but incidental bycatch that don't measurably impact populations are considered acceptable in nearly all fish management situations.

Poaching no doubt takes a share of wild steelhead each year, and as far as the best information has it, poachers come in both treaty and non-treaty flavors. The number of fish poached is unknown, but is believed to be below the threshold of imperiling the run. How do we know this? In fact, we don't. But we estimate that to be the case because poaching occurs on nearly every river system, and steelhead population assessments indicate that the take isn't great enough to significantly harm the population. How much is significant? Significant would mean would could at least measure the effect. Generally we cannot measure the effect; therefore we think it's insignificant.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[flybill]

http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/board/showthread.php?t=41243
Now we're over here on this thread slugging it out and, yes, this topic has been covered before. Apparently there is still quite a bit of interest. Some of us believe that the netting is a problem. It seems like the biologists don't agree with us. One thing is certain, we won't change anything by ignoring the issue.

JonB

Jon, I believe you started this thread, so if you're fine w/ it my point about the thread direction is moot. However it has been discussed quite a bit and I have read much of what has been written on it for the 4 or 5 years I have been on the board.

I totally agree that a change will not occur w/o involvement, however this appears to need attention at a federal level or from a group that is willing to pay for it to work it's way up to the federal courts. Given the poor environmental record of the current administration and the general public's level of interest in an issue like this, I am pessimistic that the change can take place. You, I and most of the people on this board are interested, but as a whole, we are a very small group.

I have read the other thread and think it's great to get those questions answered! Good luck! I will get involved when I can and try to keep informed on the topic in general.

Peace!
Bill

[Be Jofus G]

Jon,

So far no one has suggested doing scientific research on tribal gillnetting to answer what is essentially not a scientific question. Biologically speaking, fishery managers mainly care that sufficient spawners of each species escape to spawn and maintain fish runs. The surplus fish that are harvested from a population are just as dead regardless of the method of harvest. That's one reason why you won't find any fish biologists around here who have the kind of problems with treaty Indian gillnetting that many sport fishermen seem to - because the reasons are emotional rather than biological, provided spawning escapement goals are being achieved.

Yup, they've done a great job maintaining the fish runs. :rofl: So wouldn't increasing escapement numbers increase the numbers overall? It's not emotional dude, at least from me. I want to see more fish just like the tribes and everyone else. All I see is an arselod of tax dollars being dumped into this and no results with biologists telling us everything is fine as long as we get our escapement numbers. It is not fine when fish are being added to the protected list.

[James Mello]

Yup, they've done a great job maintaining the fish runs. :rofl: So wouldn't increasing escapement numbers increase the numbers overall? It's not emotional dude, at least from me. I want to see more fish just like the tribes and everyone else. All I see is an arselod of tax dollars being dumped into this and no results with biologists telling us everything is fine as long as we get our escapement numbers. It is not fine when fish are being added to the protected list.

The lifecycle of the fish doesn't just end with the spawning of the steelhead, it's a new beginning for each of the eggs. There is a certain carrying capacity of the habitat for each life stage of the fish.... If increasing escapement only makes it so there is surplus over what the carrying capacity of the habitat can support, the extra fish in the eyes of many do go to waste.

Indeed, in some rivers increased escapement would probably help as the habitat is relatively close to being "historically" pristine. But in others, it's debatable at best if additional spawning would help at all...

The jist of all of this is: Spawning escapement is important, but it is only one part of the puzzle.

[nomlasder]

I am a firm believer in large escapements. Let them take a crack at what ever they feel comfortable spawing in. In sea-run species the adults may return many seasons. In salmon that die, the rotting bodies don't go to waste as this fuels the entire river bed ecosystem.

[Be Jofus G]

The lifecycle of the fish doesn't just end with the spawning of the steelhead, it's a new beginning for each of the eggs. There is a certain carrying capacity of the habitat for each life stage of the fish.... If increasing escapement only makes it so there is surplus over what the carrying capacity of the habitat can support, the extra fish in the eyes of many do go to waste.

Then Shouldn't the fish and habitat be determining what the carrying capacity is instead of the WDFW and tribal biologists? Maybe instead of having someone sitting on his can counting fish, someone could hand him a shovel, chainsaw and send him out to restore spawning habitat? :confused: I dunno, I'm no biologist but doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity.

[James Mello]

Then Shouldn't the fish and habitat be determining what the carrying capacity is instead of the WDFW and tribal biologists? Maybe instead of having someone sitting on his can counting fish, someone could hand him a shovel, chainsaw and send him out to restore spawning habitat? :confused: I dunno, I'm no biologist but doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity.

I'm a bit confused by your statement, but none the less the spirit of what you want is good.

The reality is, the biologist *need* to be sitting on their can to do their important bit of work. i.e. taking data and synthisysing the data into something that can be enacted into policy. Now what the politicians do to make policy, based on (hopefully good biology) is another thing entirely. Also realize there *are* competing interests for the fish. On one hand, surplus fish is good for sport fishermen as we can catch them (C&R does have some mortality), and on the other commercial interests would like to catch them for commercial sales (speaking of SALMON ONLY). Also, please realize that our view (as I TOTALLY WANT HIGHER ESCAPEMENTS) are only a single view point. Hence that's why I made the statement: "Fish that exceed required escapement are wasted if not captured". It's human centric view, and one a lot of us don't agree with. But none the less, it does provide the foundational premise for a lot of our escapment models (MSY, MSH)....

These are orthoginal interests that have to be balanced by good policy. Bio's don't make policy, but help shape it. You want to fix things, fix the policy, and debunk industry cronies who make their money by supporting junk science.

[Be Jofus G]

I'm a bit confused by your statement, ....

Me too.

I do not know how to fix the problem. Like I said, I'm not a biologist, but I am capable of seeing that there is a problem and apparently the people we the taxpayer and License holders are paying to take care of it either do not know or can't fix it either. I'd say that it is time for some house cleaning. The WDFW and the Tribes co managment of the fisheries is a joke. I've seen the phrase "The fox guarding the henhouse" thrown around here quite a bit. I couldn't agree more with that statement. A third party needs to be involved to keep these guys honest. That may be the angle you were looking for to get congress to intervene with Boldt :confused: The WDFW andTribes are not managing wild fish, they are glorified fish farmers.

How much income does a guy who just knocked off a bank declare on his income tax form? Probably about the same as the number bycatch that is reported. :confused:

[James Mello]

Me too.

I do not know how to fix the problem. Like I said, I'm not a biologist, but I am capable of seeing that there is a problem and apparently the people we the taxpayer and License holders are paying to take care of it either do not know or can't fix it either. I'd say that it is time for some house cleaning. The WDFW and the Tribes co managment of the fisheries is a joke. I've seen the phrase "The fox guarding the henhouse" thrown around here quite a bit. I couldn't agree more with that statement. A third party needs to be involved to keep these guys honest. That may be the angle you were looking for to get congress to intervene with Boldt :confused: The WDFW andTribes are not managing wild fish, they are glorified fish farmers.

How much income does a guy who just knocked off a bank declare on his income tax form? Probably about the same as the number bycatch that is reported. :confused:

It's super tough, because for a majority of people, fish are a commodity, not a resource. If you read the Boldt decision, you'll very quickly see that the fish are treated no better than a resource that is endless and can be exploited purely for commercial interests. Boldt has *NOTHING* to do with conservation, and *EVERYTHING* to do with harvest. For the *most part* this is also how our fisheries are run.... Then again, even C&R isn't a conservation tool, all it does is maximize our game fishing opportunities....

[Salmo_g]

BJG,

It may surprise you that points of view differ in that regard. WA state law includes the mutually conflicting requirements of fisheries conservation with maintaining viable commercial fisheries and recreational fishing opportunity. Any fish bio worth his salt can conserve fish populations if allowed to do so. However, the law is interpreted according to the $$ spent on lobbying the Legislature, and commercial fishing gets restricted, but not nearly as much as some in the business would like. Further, no bio or WDFW Director in WA has ANY influence on pre-terminal salmon harvests in BC or AK. That is handled via the US Dept. of State, and AK acts like an independent nation in the two nation US - Canada treaty.

It may also surprise you to learn that increasing escapements doesn't necessarily lead to larger subsequent run sizes. It does if run sizes are under-escaped, but it doesn't when a specific run is adequately escaped. Run size is determined by limiting factors. The limiting factor is that specific factor limiting a specific fish population. For some, like sockeye, it might be available spawning area or the lake the juvenile fish rear in. For PS chinook it often seems to be early juvenile estuary rearing habitat. For coho and steelhead it seems to be either summer rearing flows or overwintering habitat, depending on the river basin and the seasonal hydrology. For pink and chum it seems to be a combination of spawning habitat and estuary rearing habitat for juveniles. And for all of them, marine survival, which varies all the time, can easily exert a 5-fold difference in run size. More fish on the spawning beds leads to a larger population up until the next limiting factor controls the population size. Which is why I said biologists generally don't care how surplus fish are caught or harvested. We just want to make escapement mainly.

You can say it's not emotional. Alternatively it could be due to being uninformed. Give me a reason why fish biologists don't have the heartburn about treaty gillnetting that so many sport fishermen express. I haven't seen one, not one, biologist in three fishing forums I peruse express the concern, let alone the conviction that so many sport anglers have that treaty gillnetting is wiping out salmon or steelhead runs. Either we're all stupid, or we're better informed and react logically rather than emotionally to the subject.

You make the excellent point that things are not good when fish are being listed under the ESA. The reasons for listing may include overfishing that occurred in the past, but in most cases the fishing rates today have already been vastly reduced in WA, perhaps not so much in BC and AK. Fish that are being harvested at extremely low rates are still declining. I'm talking about rates that low fish populations readily recover from provided they have suitable habitat in sufficient quantity and quality. Habitat issues are the leading cause of ESA listings. Even the commercial fishermen who would do well to further reduce their impacts to fish populations are right when they point to habitat as the central issue.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[Be Jofus G]

You can say it's not emotional. Alternatively it could be due to being uninformed. Give me a reason why fish biologists don't have the heartburn about treaty gillnetting that so many sport fishermen express. I haven't seen one, not one, biologist in three fishing forums I peruse express the concern, let alone the conviction that so many sport anglers have that treaty gillnetting is wiping out salmon or steelhead runs. Either we're all stupid, or we're better informed and react logically rather than emotionally to the subject.


I have already admitted that I am uninformed. :rofl: There is only one way to become "informed" and that is to talk to people who know what they are talking about. That is what I'm attempting to do. I really appreciate you putting the time in to deal with my naivety concerning this situation. I am simply a concerned tax payer and voter trying to understand exactly what is going on. The only emotion here is maybe anger at the state and federal government but That is not strictly related to wildlife issues.