Lower Quinault in 2014

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Slate Run, Nov 29, 2013.

  1. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    The cost of licensing isn't that high compared to here in CAlifornia- I STILL fly up and pay for a YEAR of out of state fishing license- and would GLADLY pay double if the money went to net removal compensation for the tribes.
    If 10,000 Washington fishermen paid an extra $25 a year- 2 6 packs of quality beer or a bottle of decent booze- you could SPLIT that money between 3 rivers worth of steelhead netting and buy out their escapement harvest. Rotate that money around every year so everyone gets a piece and guess what? You would QUICKLY see a generational rebound
     
  2. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    A healthier, better managed resource creates far more jobs than a short season harvest of an uncertain resource

    More tribal wildlife enforcement- more tribal guides- more hotel rentals,
    Gas and food sales, and all the additional money that comes with a healthy resource being managed for the long term.
    What makes you think the tribes wouldn't benefit more from that?

    I understand that making this argument in 3rd world countries is hard, because people have to eat, but in the USA, there could EASILY be financial assistance to put this into play
     
  3. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    And anyone that buys an $800
    Fly rod, $400 reel, $100 fly line and $200 waders but won't pony up an additional $40 a year to try and benefit the resource needs to rethink things

    Yes I know licensing fees go to the general fund..... But that doesn't mean the resource doesn't benefit
     
    Jason Rolfe likes this.
  4. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    I doubt that the tribe would stop fishing even if paid 2 or 3X the amount of money that is currently generated by steelhead net fisheries. It is not just about economic development and jobs.

    I detest tradition, birthright, clans, tribe, inherritence or any other trait or benefit due to who your parents are. In this case it is the law of the land though, so as much as I dislike the very idea of a "tribe" I know it must be dealt with respectfully as othrs view it quite differently.

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
    kamishak steve and Jason Rolfe like this.
  5. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma

    You are thinking in a very narrow minded way. A majority of anglers in the state probably don't spend $800 on the sum total of all the tackle they own. Money should not be the determining factor in the priviledge to fish.
     
  6. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    ok. Let me rephrase..... how much would you spend to make sure the resource which is the reason you spend ANY MONEY AT ALL on gear sticks around so you and future generations of anglers can continue to use it?
     
  7. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    $50 a year for a license is really not that much money. $100 hurts a bit, but if that money is the difference between having a resource and having nothing, its the best deal you'll ever find.

    Kamishak Steve- Heres something to think about.... while the lower reaches of these rivers are on 1st nation land, the upper reaches ( spawning water, rearing water) are in park property meant to be a haven for wildlife and is managed as a long term sustainable resource. Why the hell would you think that people would be OK with letting the downstream land occupants basically strip out the resource to oblivion before it ends up being evenly dispersed? Do we sit back and say " We owe them"? What do we owe? The right to not be accountable for a resource that is supposed to be CO MANAGED for the LONG TERM preservation of the resource. Not nickel and dimed out complete with the " fuck whitey" attitude that is so prevalent on so many of the reservations.

    Its just my opinion.... Im sure people could make all kinds of arguments as to " rights to the resource" but really.... what do you think is going to happen when THAT natural resource is gone. They will move to the next one. OR they will get more tax dollar augmentation to offset their losses. Either way, WE ALL PAY if that resource disappears. It will cost us FAR LESS to try and preserve and restore whats left.
     
  8. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma

    Money doesn't guarantee good behavior. You're making a correlation that by paying more people are more interested in "protecting" a resource. If that were the case then the Atlantic Salmon wouldn't have been nearly extirpated from a lot of eastern canadian rivers. Just because you pay doesn't mean that you play fairly. And an additional $50 is a big deal to some folks. It may not to you, but $50 is a tank of diesel or a weeks for groceries for working class folks. We pay enough already, adding another premium doesn't fix the issue and ends up creating a feudalistic system that frankly would blow.

    Also, law doesn't make sense sometimes. This isn't a resource management issue in the classic sense, but rather honoring what the law stipulates. If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the folks who botched the lawsuit to begin with.
     
  9. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    615
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    Stilly, I understand your frustration, it is a complicated issue. But I gotta tell ya the idea of buying off the Indians has been floated many times and it WILL NOT WORK. I have several friends you are tribal and I can guarantee you they will NEVER sell their treaty rights. Put yourself in their shoes, given the history in this country would you trust the government if you were them? My best friend aunts and uncles were taken from their home and sent to schools where they were beaten if they spoke their native language, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. It's easy to talk about getting over the" generational guilt" but we signed an international treaty with them ( the highest law in the land), they gave up almost all their land for the right to fish and hunt, I think we got the better end of the deal.

    To the original post I think it is a great thing that some of the tribal members are seeing the light, and while it may take some time to change the mind set, hey you have to begin somewhere. Pointing fingers hasn't worked so far, maybe we should try something different.
     
  10. PT

    PT Physhicist

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,874
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Location:
    Edmonds, WA
    Put a dollar amount out there in black and white. Let them look at it. And then let them decide. It ain't about trust, it's about money. We aren't without blame in this whole mess, either. Some steps were put in place this year to limit the whoring that's going on but more needs to be done. It's a complex issue with no simple answers. But, continually doing what has proven not to work isn't the answer.

    As for the Quinault, you can have it. I'm not supporting any tribal endeavor, in any way, with any of the money I have control over. I'll chase whatever scraps I deem worth chasing.
     
    doublespey and flybill like this.
  11. John Hicks

    John Hicks Owner and operator of Sea Run Pursuits

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    221
    Location:
    Olympia
    Home Page:
    We here on this board live in a bubble. The general public view on this issues is that the harvest of wild steelhead is and should be ok. Most people in the public that I talk to about my chosen career have no clue that killing wild fish is unethical. I educate 2-3 people every week on this subject. I have turned several prospective clients away, that felt they wanted to kill a wild fish. Just yesterday my neighbor was bragging about the fact that his friend is a Quinault, and that when he fishes with him
    "There is no limit and no such thing as release."
    This is an educated individual that knows the laws and ethics. How do we change the public view to make the killing of wild fish unpalatable?

    Not even the most sacred of our steelhead streams are strictly catch and release. Until we change the public opinion and not just ours, the steelhead will suffer. The catch and keep mentality is what keeps hatchery programs running. The public at large does not differentiate between hatchery and wild. A steelhead is a steelhead. Until the demand for steelhead goes away, there will be tribal netting and hatcheries, period!

    I would love to see the Quinault tribe change their thinking and turn over to guiding. The unfortunate reality is that this will never happen. Guiding the lower Queets and the Quinault rivers for C&R will support a few of the tribal members, only a few. It will not support the whole. And that is just a pure numbers fact. If you add in that not every person has the personality to be a guide, that number gets even smaller.
     
    flybill and Evan Burck like this.
  12. John Hicks

    John Hicks Owner and operator of Sea Run Pursuits

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    221
    Location:
    Olympia
    Home Page:


    James, I agree with you that money does not guarantee good behavior. But it does by way of cost curb bad behavior. The atlantic salmon rivers that you talk about, are doing much better now than they did in the past. Runs are much bigger and sustainable. The fact that there is a $250 trophy fee to kill a wild fish on any river, decimates the harvest of wild fish. The money from higher license fees and trophy fees goes back into the resource. Does it limit the participation in the sport? Yes. Does it create a high bar for entry? Yes. Is that necessarily a bad thing? In my opinion, no. I do not ski anymore because the cost of skiing outweighs my desire to ski.
     
  13. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma

    The changes in numbers is more due to gillnet fisheries being modified that money being spent. As for money going back into the resource, ain't gonna happen. It all goes to the general fund, not one set aside for fisheries.
     
    kamishak steve likes this.
  14. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma

    BTW, by your own admission, money still doesn't curb bad behavior.

    "The fact that there is a $250 trophy fee to kill a wild fish on any river"

    It prevents some of the killing, but money now buys privilege for a public resource which is orthogonal to it being a public resource.
     
    kamishak steve likes this.
  15. Adrian

    Adrian Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    71
    I actually read the article in the Drake. Now mind you, the Drake is a highly regarded publication with a strong focus on conservation.

    I learned an awful lot about the Quinault Fisheries department and how they go about managing the hatchery and wild stocks. If the Drake's editors thought the Quinault tribe were recklessly raping the river and wild steelhead, they wouldn't have run the article.

    I am 3rd generation Polish, my grandmother arrived at Ellis Island. I don't owe the tribes shit. I agree with the vast majority of lamenting taking place on this thread. However, energies need to be focused on watersheds overseen by WDFW. The treaties are in place and the tribes just had a big ass party celebrating the 40th year of the Boldt ruling.

    The tribes are going to as they please on their land.

    Leave the tribes be and focus your energies on the WDFW, who in my mind are a much bigger enemy. You can make a difference there. Hell, WDFW has public comment periods on a wide range of policy. Show up in Centralia when they have a comment period on wild steelhead gene pools for the Toutle and N. Fork Lewis. Offer education to your friends and suggest they don't buy steelhead at your local Safeway.

    I am by no means defending the tribes, I am saying it is a waste of time and energy. Get off the forum and drop an email to the WDFW.
     
    kamishak steve likes this.