Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Tribal netting

15K views 195 replies 39 participants last post by  Leopardbow 
#1 ·
Anyone know when they net the forks area rivers? Is there somewhere i can look to see when they do it?
 
#40 ·
This topic is tired and has been done to death.

However, it is hard to imagine a greater threat to salmon and steelhead than the gauntlet of nets on some of our lower rivers.

The Nooksack will go through period where there are dozens of nets across the river from the mouth up, strategically put in all the right spots.

I am amazed the fish are still surviving at any level with what I see.

There is no arguing that all these nets have a huge impact.
 
#41 ·
In this particular case it's because you are choosing to only look at the immediate impact while you're on the river. That is NOT to say that nets don't impact the fisheries, to the contrary they ARE an impact. But let's be realistic. In the salmon fishery, the other half of the fish are caught in nearshore commercial fishers by any number of countries/tribes. Add to that rip-rapping of rivers, strip malls, pollution in the high seas and local water ways, and you start to see that the nets, while a big contributor doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the other problems....
 
#44 ·
Interesting thread and much more civil than others like it the past few years.

I'm intrigued by Derek's comment: "Tribes could be restricted from fishing if it is a "conservation necessity". And must pass a strict 3 prong test. It must be reasonable and neccessary to perpetuate the species."

In light of the precipitous decline in anadromous populations that was unanticipated in 1974, I think a reasonable man would conclude that continuing to allow tribal fishing in spite of probably extinction would amount to the tribes winning the battle but losing the war. In the end, 50% of nothing is nothing. And nothing is what have the tribes would have after legally perpetuating their 'cultural tradition' with long-term disregard for it's consequences.

I wonder if a case could be made that allowing treaty netting even if sport and commercial fishing were shut down as in California and Oregon could force a re-interpretation of Boldt?

It's hard for me to image any court agreeing to hear such a case until and unless commercial and sport fishing had already been banned leaving the tribal netting as the only remaining impediment.

Given the low priority that WFDW and other state agencies seem to place on anadromous conservation, that sort of action probably won't be taken until after it's too late.

K
 
#45 ·
i have to agree that the gill nets are indeed a 'bottleneck', one easily identified and an issue that demands immediate attention. for those of you who persist in believing that the majority of these declines are due to habitat loss/change, let me, once again, call your attention to the hood canal. the duck'a'bush, dosewallips and hamma hamma are now sterile eco systems. upstream there is ZERO habitat degredation. the olympic nat'l park serves as the beginning point for these rivers. the olympic nat'l forest covers the lower reaches and you can see for yourself, little logging or road building.

so why would the fish in these rivers have gone extinct? following boldt, the salmon wars took off in ernest with someone killing the very last wild fishes in the canal. OVERFISHING drove these runs to extinction. don't for a minute believe that is not going to happen in the remainder of the eco systems that make up puget sound.

and for those of you who joined CCA, don't you think its time to ask a few questions about how your dollars are being spent or not?
 
#46 ·
Uuggh... Tell me about it! Those rivers mentioned are among my favorite rivers to hike up and it is deeply saddening to know that they are devoid of basically any anadromous life. I've caught one fish (SRC) below Big Hump on the Duckabush and none below Dosewallips Falls. They do have some areas of resident fish up high, but that's not the issue. They are indeed the "Ghost of Christmas Future," so to speak.

And to those of us who joined CCA, our membership dollars are spent employing lobbyists in Olympia and Washington D.C. trying to get things done. Currently I think the focus is on the Columbia River Spring Chinook fishery.
-Ethan
 
#47 ·
Kent,

Your implicit question illustrates the distinction between the treaty "right" to fish and the non-treaty privilege to fish. The courts have ruled that the treaty fishery may be restricted for conservation necessity only after all other alternatives have been employed. Those include complete closures of non-treaty commercial and recreational fishing.

GT's infatuation with a re-interpretation of the treaty languate "in common with" is a legal and political long shot, but is probably the only thing that would level the playing field between treaty and non-treaty fishing.

Sg
 
#60 ·
. . . The courts have ruled that the treaty fishery may be restricted for conservation necessity only after all other alternatives have been employed. Those include complete closures of non-treaty commercial and recreational fishing.
Salmo, you hit the issue square on the head. The key phrase is 'only after all other alternatives have been employed'

The problem with this thread and all the other like it before is that most of the passionate posters want the tribes to give up ALL their fishing activities so that sportfishers might have MORE fish for themselves.

Problem is, every time someone posts a thread asking how many here would be willing to GIVE UP FISHING for anadromous salmonids in order to give them a chance to survive (and including a shot at ask Boldt to be reinterpreted in that light), the overwhelming majority disagree.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that's certainly not going to happen in this state.

K
 
#48 ·
right, salmo, a real long shot but 'in common with' implies that everyone in this state was viewd as having a 'right' to fish. i honestly do believe that the intent of the treaties was to preserve a way of life, subsistence, ceremonial, and as mentioned, a barter system. i don't believe the treaties were intended to provide the indian fishery free reign on commercial harvest. i also believe in making ALL commercial harvest subject to a single set of enforceable rules and regulations. the three indian, purposes, above, should not be interfered with, IMHO.

so what impact has CCA had with its lobbying efforts, curious minds want to know. some one needs to 'show me the beef' before i throw any more $$ at yet another group making claims.
 
#69 ·
right, salmo, a real long shot but 'in common with' implies that everyone in this state was viewd as having a 'right' to fish. i honestly do believe that the intent of the treaties was to preserve a way of life, subsistence, ceremonial, and as mentioned, a barter system. i don't believe the treaties were intended to provide the indian fishery free reign on commercial harvest.
Pleade don't take this the wrong way. But it doesn't make any difference what you or I think it was intended to mean. The case the judge used to back up BOLDT stated something to similar to...

It doesn't matter how the original agreement was written, It matters how the original agreement was interpreted by the tribes. Honestly, I don't have the time or enough giveashit to look up the exact wording but basically since ****** was very good at wording agreements to essentially rip off the oft uneducated tribes, espically the ones with little grasp of the english language, that all of the agreements default to "What the tribes thought the agreement said".

Actually, If I was a tribal member whos ancestors had an agreement with "The Man" I would go to court and state "My great great great grandfather told me he thought the agreement actually stated that the US government promised daily delivery of swimsuit models and beer in exchange for 10000 acres of swampland. :rofl:
 
#49 ·
wow, what a discussion.
having finally read all 130 pages of Boldt and SCOTUS, including the comments by the justices (most interesting), I feel like all these decisions are vulnerable to challenge. What has changed?
-the science of fisheries management
-use of genetic typing to identify stocks
-ESA listings
-casinos as the primary livelihood of many of the fish eating tribes
-collapsing stocks in some watersheds
-increasing public attention to the issues
-development of SELECTIVE net fishing systems similar to the weirs the tribes used before the arrival of the white man and his monofilament...Yes, Selective Nets. The tribes don't have to kill endangered fish.

Boldt and other decisions were difficult decisions, made in a different time, and now new decisions face us in this time.
Clearly, joint management and multiple jurisdictions in Federal and State and Tribal government make it a hideously complex issue.
Bob
 
#57 ·
wow, what a discussion.
having finally read all 130 pages of Boldt and SCOTUS, including the comments by the justices (most interesting), I feel like all these decisions are vulnerable to challenge. What has changed?
-the science of fisheries management
-use of genetic typing to identify stocks
-ESA listings
-casinos as the primary livelihood of many of the fish eating tribes
-collapsing stocks in some watersheds
-increasing public attention to the issues
-development of SELECTIVE net fishing systems similar to the weirs the tribes used before the arrival of the white man and his monofilament...Yes, Selective Nets. The tribes don't have to kill endangered fish.

Boldt and other decisions were difficult decisions, made in a different time, and now new decisions face us in this time.
Clearly, joint management and multiple jurisdictions in Federal and State and Tribal government make it a hideously complex issue.
Bob
The reality is, there have been several challenges already to Boldt. Unless you come up with another angle, the law isn't going to try to reinterpret what has already been interpreted.

Also, there are specifics which may be easier to get through, for instance selective fisheries. But in some cases the tribes are described as self regulating the Quinaults being one of them. For the most part, because of this, the tribe can tell the state and feds pretty much to piss off. The reality is, unless we shut down entirely first, there isn't a whole lot to do to fight this thing.
 
#50 ·
GT,

One further point about historic fishing by treaty tribes. It is true that they fished for subsistence and ceremonial purposes. Contrary to the opinions of many, and perhaps yourself, treaty tribes also commercially fished at the time treaties were made in 1854 and 1855. Indians traded with other tribes and whites and also sold fish to whites. In the 1850s, salmon fishing wasn't thought of as a white man's job in the PNW. Indians fished and were good at it. Anyone who wanted fish typically bought it from Indians just as Indians who wanted steel tools and hardware and woven cloth bought them from whites at the general store or from trading ships. Indian commercial fishing is well established in the findings of fact in the court decisions. Therefore treaty commercial fishing is as much protected as is subsistence and ceremonial fishing.

Sg
 
#51 ·
G's right. the prewhite economy was largely based on salmon.
That's part of what the treaties speak to.

But I think if the Treaty framers had even considered the possibility of gillnets strung across rivers, decimating native fish populations in the process of harvesting fish from a hatchery, the wording and conditions of the treaties would have been a bit different, huh? maybe included some phrases like "ecologically sustainable manner..."
 
#62 ·
Lots of good discussion here. I appreciate what many of you have brought in as well as much of the historical information. Salmo G, Kent, GT, Bob(s) - some good stuff.

But I think if the Treaty framers had even considered the possibility of gillnets strung across rivers, decimating native fish populations in the process of harvesting fish from a hatchery, the wording and conditions of the treaties would have been a bit different, huh? maybe included some phrases like "ecologically sustainable manner..."
As to this - I don't think so.

Putting the current situation aside, one of my largest frustrations is the way some of you continue to suggest or assume that there was a positive or benevolent intent on the part of the "treaty framers." My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the treaty framers in the PNW had the same intent as those who drew up treaties in any other part of the country. Treaty framers intended to take Indian land, placate or eliminate the few who chose to openly question the action, and then counted on the possibility that the remaining populations would starve, die of disease, move off, or become totally "assimilated" as was the politically and religiously fashionable idea. For whatever reason, it didn't happen here, or perhaps we Europeans didn't calculate the value of the resource (andramous fish)as dearly as the Indians, or the determination of the Indians to hold onto that resource, symbolic or otherwise.

Perhaps it was even a matter of geography. By the time we arrived here in large numbers, there was no further "west" to which we could push the Indians out of our way.

A mentor of mine told me some time ago that sometimes "you have to put your gun on the table." Are we ready to do that? I think that this may another way of looking at Bob Triggs' point about asking someone else to stop something - first.

I know some individuals on this board who have consciously chosen to give up steelheading in order to give the resource some small respite. I'm sure there are others elsewhere. I'm ready to take that step, too, having been convinced by some of the very good points I've read here.

Even of you can't bring youself to do that, or to get involved in any other way, at least give us a break from the non-starter suggestion that those generous "treaty framers" had any kind of intentions other than to line their own pockets and launch their own empires, if necessary at the expense of those who were here first.

Yes, it's history and it can't be recalled and fixed. But look at world events and then tell me history, or at least its acknowledgement, doesn't matter.
 
#52 ·
Indians are recorded to have been trading with the earliest European maritime explorers to the Pacific Northwest, and especially in the Puget Sound and Inside Passage areas. The accounts go back to the original records of the Ships Logs,(record books) Captains and Mates diaries etc.

One of the first things that the sailors asked for was fresh fish and Salmon, fresh fruits etc. They bartered with valuables like copper sheeting, buttons, iron etc. This became an expected form of trade and by the late 1700's was a well established market on the waterways between Coastal Indians and sailors- American, Spanish, English etc- from California to Alaska. The explorers were always very interested in sea otter pelts as well, and the value in goods that they traded for these was rediculously low in comparison. In fact, as far back as one can study the matter, visitors to this region were always taking more than they were willing to give back.

The Indians here have aways gotten screwed by the white man. If we want them to stop killing these last wild fish then we may have to stop fishing for them too. The fish and the fishing are the only meaningful thing that the Indians here ever got back from the white man.Now we are asking them to stop fishing. What are we willing to give up here?
 
#53 ·
yes, i understand much of the history of the pacific coast and the indian fisheries from before to after contact. that said, i don't think the framers of the treaties were so much interested in protecting indian rights as putting the non-indian place holders in the language, hence 'in common with'. one must remember that at the time of these treaties, the only thing that mattered was displacing the indians so the non-indians would have a place to harvest the bounty of the sea.

but here we are in a new era with issues facing the anadramous fish runs that no one could have imagined in the 1800's. but until, or unless, a legal challenge is put forth, nothing is going to change.
 
#59 ·
No Steven's treaty tribes... Because of this the state gets to regulate there fisheries more directly.

Here we are blessed with the great wonderful foresight of both our predecessors as well as the WDFW and their great legal team.... Read up on the history, it's amusing how full of hubris we were and how we got our asses handed to us... :(
 
#58 ·
GT,

Another correction if you don't mind. The Stevens treaties were for the purpose of displacing natives, but not so the whites would have a place to harvest the bounty of the sea. The sea was looked upon mainly as a highway for commerce. The Stevens treaties sought to displace natives so that white settlers could obtain clear legal title to land for the purpose of building farms, towns, and cities. Again, harvesting the bounty of the sea was quite predominately an Indian occupation. It stayed that way until near the end of the 19th century when canning food was invented. Prior to that time salmon was sold fresh, smoked, and salted, so the total market demand was relatively low, although tons of salted salmon was shipped from WA and OR to CA. Canning opened a new industry wherein salmon fishing became profitable enough for whites to become interested in fishing for salmon as well as processing and shipping them for sale. Canning changed everything about salmon in the PNW.

Sg
 
#73 ·
actually no one alive today knows 'the intent of the treaties'. it is quite interesting to learn that the oral history of many of the sub populations of indians has evaporated. i am not an anthropologist, but i suspect much of this was assimilation caused. what we have is a federal judge's interpretation. we should also remember that interpretation is only a single point of view from a single individual. 'in common with' actually does need another day in court.

i would agree that when the first few thousand settlers arrived along the shores of puget sound, they had other things to consider than commercial fishing. but as time unwound, the potential for the bounty of that resource was not lost on them. hence, the treaties were created to displace the indians and open the resource to a new breed of settler who was interested in making bucks from fishing and in snapping up some primo property that was historically indian villages. keep in mind that indians were not citizens and so did not qualify for land grants. many of the indian families realized that in order to actually own property, they would have to assimilate or loose out. the tribe in my local area was one of those who choose to get involved with land grants. they were quite late in filing to become recognized as a tribe but also succeeded in doing just that. they also refused to be relocated to potlatch and choose, instead, to set up their farms and businesses in the area in which they grew up.

i am very famaliar with the various theories of salmon wandering, think of the bell shaped curve here with the mid point being the natal eco system. those studies started in ernst in the 60's and have been elaborated upon ever since. of course in that time frame, the UofW fisheries folks were in the dark regarding migration and fish returns, '...too complicated they proclamed...'. it was an interesting time with light shined on the subject by 2 comparative psychologists from the university of WISCONSIN, kind of an embarassing moment for the fisheries program, to say the least. i have to say, i don't think they have gotten ahead of the knowledge curve to this day.

hood canal was a central focus in the salmon wars of the 80's it was indian vs non-indian to see who could catch the most fish. one group or the other wiped out all the last of the wild fish in the canal. what you find there today are a very few wandering fish + the huge dog salmon hatchery harvest for the total benefit of the indians. the canal does not represent a 'crash' of fish in an eco system as the tootle did, it is an example of overfished to extinction.
 
#81 ·
i am very famaliar with the various theories of salmon wandering, think of the bell shaped curve here with the mid point being the natal eco system. those studies started in ernst in the 60's and have been elaborated upon ever since. of course in that time frame, the UofW fisheries folks were in the dark regarding migration and fish returns, '...too complicated they proclamed...'. it was an interesting time with light shined on the subject by 2 comparative psychologists from the university of WISCONSIN, kind of an embarassing moment for the fisheries program, to say the least. i have to say, i don't think they have gotten ahead of the knowledge curve to this day.

hood canal was a central focus in the salmon wars of the 80's it was indian vs non-indian to see who could catch the most fish. one group or the other wiped out all the last of the wild fish in the canal. what you find there today are a very few wandering fish + the huge dog salmon hatchery harvest for the total benefit of the indians. the canal does not represent a 'crash' of fish in an eco system as the tootle did, it is an example of overfished to extinction.
Err, before suggesting things are simply just based on Gaussian distributions, you may want to read the text.... The curve is actually a shape in which the lower population values show a very static recruit to spawner (nearly a level curve) until a "minimum" threashold is reached. Then from there, the value becomes asymtotic to a maximum carrying capacity. The neat thing about the curve is the resiliance of the population to mortality, yet it's complete crash and stasis below the critical threshold. I believe the specific values you are talking about are the MSY and MSH curves which are quite a bit different than what I was talking about.

I think the biggest thing about this should be noted. I didn't disagree for the orginal cause of the Hood canal crash. Insteady I suggested that the ability of the fish to rebound in the "habitat intact" areas around hood canal was a poor example.
 
#76 ·
Just out of curiousity, what is the penalty for cutting/removing a net?

I'm in no way an advocate of it but I'm sure it happens.

Also, in MI we fished the Great Lakes and every so often would run across abandoned gill nets left by the tribes...is that a problem in the PNW as well?
 
#80 ·
I'm thinking the same thing here too Jason...
I'm back in late...almost regretting dropping back in.

clearly, we are not as well organized as the tribal and nontribal netters....and a single unified message doesn't seem to be here. No wonder sport fishermen are PAYING FOR the fish, and others are CATCHING them.

to an old point-the treaties were negotiated in the Chinook trading language, which consists of only three hundred words. Let's say nuance was not a factor. I'm not a starry eyed dope, I just posed a hypothetical. What if the treaty had to be negotiated today, knowing what we know now?

Chris J, as far as getting swept...It happens to me frequently. :mad: when the sled will come around the corner, damn near run over my spey line, and drop a net in to sweep the hole I'm standing in. The piles of gutted chum hens in the woods add a certain ambiance to the experience, as do the piles of unspawned bucks on the beaches at other spots.

...and I'm out there in my fancy waders with a fishing outfit you could trade for a used car, waving a string tied to a cat toy...no, I'll guess I'm not exactly the taker in this scenario. Yes, I have a personal interest as an outdoorsman. But uppermost in my mind are steelhead, the spirit of the Northwest, and salmon, the basis of the entire ecosystem, being wiped out for short-term profit so some guy can buy his kid a wii.

Hey, nothing against the tribes and their fishing rights, but some of the stuff I've seen is irresponsible and wrong no matter who's doing it. There has to be some accommodations made, and I don't think giving up flyfishing for steelhead will do anything but give me an excuse to feel like a little disempowered victim, and I don't wear that well.
 
#82 ·
Hey, nothing against the tribes and their fishing rights, but some of the stuff I've seen is irresponsible and wrong no matter who's doing it. There has to be some accommodations made, and I don't think giving up flyfishing for steelhead will do anything but give me an excuse to feel like a little disempowered victim, and I don't wear that well.
I think that you're missing the point. Nobody said that nets don't have an affect, and I think that all folks will agree that irresponsible fishing is irresponsible.

What was stated that is we have only a couple of options.

1) Fix our problems associated with the 3 H's (hatcheries, habitat, hydro) in sum total and watch fish rebound.

2) Fix our problem associated with harvest with a complete moratorium on any kind of mortality and take it back to the courts and see if the fish rebound

In either case, since this is a federal issue the state doesn't have a lot of options, and they tend to begin with *US* doing something first.
 
#83 ·
Yes, a unified message is not here. The tribes have to become part of the solution. Don't know how that can happen. I get pissed also when they sweep over the run I'm swinging through. I've have had to back out of the water to avoid them. I could really go on about this. :rofl:
All I know is to is get involved with organizations I can align with. If you can't align with any groups then write, email, phone, visit the ones who can change things--your legislators, members of the WDFW Commission, the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and others. Let's give our anger and frustration to them. :D Only takes a couple minutes to express yourself. Do it often.

It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

Senate Natural Resources Committee--
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/NROR/membersstaff.htm

Phil Anderson, Interem WDFW Director
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/staff/director/index.html

WDFW Commission
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/index.html

WDFW Commission members
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html
 
#84 ·
I know that I am not nearly as educated on this subject as many of you guys but since everyone is on the topic......I thought Id might ask a quicky.

I think it was gt who claimed that habitat degredation was minimal on a few select rivers on the OP (Duck, Dosy, Hamma Hamma), and then one stated that those particular rivers do not get netted by tribes which is logical. Well my question is more pointed toward rivers such as the Queets for example. I mean, most all of the river flows through the National Park causing NO habitat degredation, yet the tribes are able to net 6 days a week at times! What else could be desimating the wild steelhead poulation on that system besides the tribes??? The Quinaults broodstock program, those fish interfering with the true wild fish?


Jake
 
#85 ·
Jake, every expert you talk to can agree on one thing, they have for me so far-
besides the 4 Hs there's also high seas and inshore interception, instream poaching, and some mystery variables like ocean acidification, feed availability issues, and shifts in ocean current patterns all having possible effects on fish returns.
They aren't able to truly quantify the effects of any of these things because they're not able to measure them for obvious reasons. This also provides a handy excuse for inaction...but in my mind should provide the opposite. Because we don't know, harvest should be curtailed. Along with a BUNCH of other interventions.

I agree with Mr Mello in that there's a lot of things to be done, but disagree with the idea that this is a Federal only issue- I mentioned that it's a hideously complex issue; complex because these fish fall under perhaps 30 different local and Federal Gov't jurisdictions, hideous because there isn't very good communications between them.

Totally agree with Dan-
the time we're spending posting on this would be better spent typing a simple note to our elected and appointed officials. All we're doing here is getting a little wound up, spinning wheels, maybe feeling a bit impotent.
Hell, send you representative a link to this string!
 
#86 ·
thanks for your insights mr mello. if the work you mentioned is available on-line, please post a link i would be interested in reading as out here we really don't have access to any university library.

extinction is a harse word. but that is exactly the reason why the fish are not present on the canal. habitat in tact, no fish. someone actually caught that last wild fish. combine that with taking the fish population below sustainability, and there you have it what we all can clearly see today, extinct runs of anadramous fishes.

with the current harvest methodologies and quotas, extinction is coming to your own favorite eco system, take it to the bank, and it will happen very suddenly and it's over at that point. shuffling your feet waiting for someone like CCA to 'lobby' there way into saving fish is a total joke.
 
#88 ·
Lemme see what I can dig up, but it's copyrighted material so I don't think I can just fotocopy and post... The book I read was in the Tacoma Public Library, so I'm hoping that you can find yours in a local library too. In all seriousness, this book completely changed the way I viewed fisheries, my impact, and the impacts of industry...

Here's the title:

The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout Thomas Quinn
ISBN: 9780295984575
 
#87 ·
While I don't want to defend irresponsible netting in rivers, or any netting in rivers where runs are endangered, it has been suggested by salmon conservation-minded biologists (eg, David Montgomery, whose fine book was cited by Kent above), that the best way to have a commercial fishery on anadromous fish is to restrict harvest to river mouth fisheries. That is the only way that individual river stocks can be managed, since the stocks comingle in the saltwater.

Sport anglers invest an inordinate amount of negative energy towards in-river commercial fisheries, because they are visible to them and they share the same waters that the sport anglers visit. Most say little (witness this thread) about the fact that the majority of commercial harvest is in the salt water. Out of sight - out of mind. Only a small proportion of that take is by tribal commercial fishermen.

However, as several others have pointed out, habitat degradation, both in spawning rivers and the salt, are responsible for a significant, yet unknown portion of the problem. Quantifying that part of the problem is made substantially more difficult, because of the variable that commercial fishing puts into the equation.

The experiment that I would like to see is a commercial fishing moratorium - before it is too late, as it may be in California. We then could start to quantify the effect of commercial fishing vs. habitat destruction on individual fish stocks. Once we start to get a handle on the habitat (and hydro, which is really a habitat issue) side of the problem, assuming we see a recovery of stocks, we could re-establish commercial fisheries on a river by river basis with harvest permitted only in estuaries and river mouths where the fish are already committed to their natal river, thus avoiding impact on other stocks.

I have no confidence that such an experiment will ever be conducted, however. We have seen too many generations of fisheries management, where commercial harvest is so far ahead of ecological health (or sport fishing) in determining policy that those issues essentially carry no weight, for me to believe that will ever change. Even ESA status for our Puget Sound salmon and steelhead stocks has not led to substantive changes in that regard. It is the nuclear fission management strategy; with each half-life decrease in stocks we keep reducing our harvest at a rate that guarantees a continued "managed" decline.

Dick
 
#90 ·
thanks, as soon as the library finishes their remodel and reopens, i'll go down and search it out.

river mouth netting??????

how about river mouth fish traps from which: a) an accurate count of allowable quota can be obtained and b) from which unclipped fish can be released unharmed and untouched.

nets kill everything, no matter where they are set.
 
#91 ·
Here's a suggestion. We offer the tribes control over the fisheries from the river mouth to the headwaters. In exchange they have to create a statewide tribal agency to enforce some agreed upon rules. 1) agree to reduce their their commercial harvesting 50% which should make 50% more fish available for recreational opportunities. 2) all guides are licensed by the tribal agency, with 25% of licenses reserved for non native guides.

It puts all the tribes together and lets them figure out how to deal with each other instead of the state trying to patch things together piecemeal. It reduces the amount of fish being netted and it promotes more sport angling revenues for their respective tribes. Most importantly it puts them in charge of a fishery they appear to value so fervently and it does so on a level that makes them accountable to each other as tribes rather than just the State and Federal Government.

I keep hearing how the government can't get it right, let's let the indians have a try.

Too Crazy?

JR
 
#92 ·
qt
I was going to stay out of this. There's to many opinions mixed in with some facts and that always delutes the truth. Although I can agree with most of your ideas and have stated some of the same things myself, but I strongly disagree with your statment about CCA! It's been a slow process to turn decades of stupidity and greed around to looking at things from a common sense viewpoint and seeing that something has to change if there are going to be fish in 50 years. I don't know if your statment was based on your opinion or observation.
I do attend the committee meetings and attended the senate NR commitee meeting on Jan 21,09 which was an invitation only testimony senate meeting. Represented was WDFW,A tribal rep, a netter rep,chater boat rep and CCA. At one point, Senator Jacobson(the man that is and has been the head of the fisheries commiteefor over 10 years and controls more final decisions than the director of WDFW) asked the temporary director of WDFW what they were doing about selective netting! That is CCA's main push and they have presented their case backed by scientific information and provable,undeniable truth. They have accomplished more in a very short time than anyone else to my knowledge, and they are gaining respect from everyone. I don't care if you dont support them but get your facts straight before you slam them, or perhaps get involved and see what you think!
This is by no means a personal attack as I enjoy most of your posts but we all have to unite, get educated and support a group that can take it all the way and create lasting change based on the truth and common sense. It is happening but needs far more support.
Get pesonally envolved,join and support a sportsmans group that is in alignment with your idealogy and write letters to your represenatives. They may not be biologists but they have to listen to what the majority wants or face not being re-elected.
Thanks
Mel
 
#95 ·
Johnnyrockfish,

I don't see anything attractive to the tribes in your proposal. They already have most of what you describe and then some. The only thing you're offering them is guide licensing fees, and that is far less than what you're asking them to give up. For an analogy consider this: here, I'll give you $25 and you give me $100. Fair enough, OK? Why do you think the tribes would be interested in your offer?

James,

Nearly all the treaty tribes are now self-regulating or have defacto self-regulating status. Johnnyrockfish's offer overlooks that the treaty tribes already have predominate control of anadromous fisheries in WA and expects them to give up some of their management authority to other oversite, including rival tribes.

Sg
 
#100 ·
Johnnyrockfish,

I don't see anything attractive to the tribes in your proposal. They already have most of what you describe and then some. The only thing you're offering them is guide licensing fees, and that is far less than what you're asking them to give up. For an analogy consider this: here, I'll give you $25 and you give me $100. Fair enough, OK? Why do you think the tribes would be interested in your offer?

Sg
The incentive is that 75% of the guides are native and the fees for charters go back to them. Also, licenses to float or bank fish would also go to the tribes. Probably way to complicated but the traditional way of thinking isn't working so we need to brainstorm....

The topic of the thread is Tribal Netting. If we try to solve every other problem (other countries fishing!!) at the same time we're going to move nowhere so we need to focus on the tribes. How can the tribes realize more $$$ from recreational fishing than netting? That, to me, is the nut we have to crack.

JR
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top