Tribal netting

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by MasterAnglerTaylor, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Yelm, Wa., USA.
  2. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    seems as though, if we boiled all of these posts down to the nub, we would all agree ALL nets need to come out. selective fishing is the alternative and would not challenge the indians 50%. with ESA listings, it would also seem to be a management tool that has the most immediate impact and perhaps merit.

    anyone at CCA paying attention or are they too busy standing around 'lobbying'???
     
  3. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    I'd say that this is true about netting, especially the LCR gillneting. I think the only thing we don't agree on is whether we clean ship first on our side, or if we try to tackle both parties...
     
  4. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA
    I agree selective fishing is the one way to effectively protect ESA listed fish. However, i think only through a combination of things e.g. selective fishing (non-gillnetting), habitat restoration, hatchery reform and better hatchery management will improve native fish returns.

    Having said that, it takes time and I believe a new attitude is being spread through the PNW regarding some of these issues. You have to remember that the tribes are just one piece of the puzzle. They do have treaty rights to the fishing, but I think if we make other changes, make sacrifices, then the tribes as co-managers will also make concessions.
     
  5. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    143
    Location:
    Roy, WA
    Re; the Heukers--
    as a former commercial myself, I can say it won't take but a few hours hanging out in a fishermen's bar to convince you the practice of overcatch/underreport is widespread, even common. If you knew your season would be done if you reported your bycatch, would you report it? And some sportsmen are no better, not punching fish cuz they're too cheap to pay for a new punchcard. Same principle.

    The two most important and basic management metrics- actual return and actual take, are both mere guesses.
    Setting harvest limits against projected returns that always somehow seem to run short most of the time...the cart is pushing the horse here.
     
  6. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    266
    Location:
    Bellingham
    As a former commercial fisherman myself I am happy to completely agree.

    All your points are exactly what I have been trying to get across with very little notice from anyone.

    What we need is actual evidence. The evidence we are using now to manage fisheries is provided by the fisheries.

    This is a game, we need to make it a science.
     
  7. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA
    I believe a lot of this is determined in the North of Falcon process, so we need to change leadership and a change of attitude in that process which essentially divides up the "projected" catch.

    So, if selective harvest reforms aren't made, how would you encourage or make commercial fisherman to better comply and report bi-catch?
     
  8. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    143
    Location:
    Roy, WA
    Jason, I always knew you were my soul brother. Not to get all squishy or anything:D

    to your question, Leopardbow-
    probably can't; the conservation is going to have to come from the front end.

    example: third party scientific-only return projections, with a conservative rate-of-return window that triggers a closure in the EARLY stage of a poor run.

    mandatory jail time and revocation of fishing license on first offense. Period. Commercial or sport or tribal.

    citizens with binoculars and digital cameras monitoring harvest activities.


    for God's sake, the least they could do is ACT like it's important. DFW took it in the hiney this year, with an enormous budget cut.:beathead::beathead:
     
  9. Gertie's Pa

    Gertie's Pa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lacey, WA
    Conservation in this state means supporting the tribes at all costs and beating the hell out of the sports.:rofl::beathead:
     
  10. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Olympia
    The state can't really do anything about the tribes. It can do a lot about other commercial fishing quotas (non-tribal).

    Also, why aren't all you anti-tribal net zealots raising money to help tribes aquire fish traps? If one went about it the right way (not angry or patronizing), I bet some tribes would be happy to switch to trapping v. netting, especially if someone else were footing the bill. The tribes have a RIGHT to these fish. Going after tribal fishing quotas is an expensive proposition because of the 5th Ammendment right to just compensation (Value of annual salmon quotas X Forever = Not cost effective). And for all of you who will undoubtedly say, "the value is diminishing with the runs". Well, if it diminishing, who ever is at fault (culverts, the state for rampant development, etc.) will pay for the diminished value. I digress, but my point is, anything that happens on the tribal side will most likley have to be collaborative. Commercial fishing on the other hand--we owe them nothing. That's the low hanging fruit on the harvest side.
     
  11. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA
    Spey - I think the only way we can help regulate commercial fishing, sports fishing poaching and other illegal harvesting of ESA listed fish is through regulating ourselves until the State takes the money from the sports fishing industry out of the General Fund and puts it back into the resources we are paying for e.g. more enforcement officers.

    Derek, I agree with helping the tribes see the benefits of fish traps vs. gill netting, however, i don't think money is an issue for the tribes as much as it is the ease for someone to place a net. In addition, I am not even sure if fish traps are legal in the state.

    It would benefit the tribes I think for them on their own to do a better job of self-regulating their tribal members on their fishing practices and explore alternatives to netting as we, non-tribal members do our part.

    I agree that development, timber harvesting and other factors have diminished habitat, but until we all work together, what we are doing now, just isn't working. I think we can all agree that pointing fingers isn't working, it is through action, unified action that will make a difference.
     
  12. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    143
    Location:
    Roy, WA
    .........
     
  13. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    143
    Location:
    Roy, WA
    well Delbert I feel the pain too-that's what it feels like at times-I have stomped and pissed my way around many a riverbank kicking rocks with the same feeling-friggin PISSED. about all of it.

    but tribal fishers are entitled, not just by treaty, but MORALLY, to pursue a fair share of the catch; any third grader will tell you "I was here first".
    Let's not beat them up for that....that's too 70's. But...it would be refreshing if the tribes would step up and be the true stewards and caretakers of the rivers that their own tradition requires them to be. That's a good impulse to encourage in everyone.
    Sportsmen...are not organized, are not vocal, don't PUSH. so of course we lose. Would you like to change that? personally? you can. Start today.

    CCA is currently advocating for the use of selective fish traps on rivers. That means the tribes get theirs, in a sustainable way, and the traps harmonize with their own traditions...more so than monofilament gillnets! less effort for the same amount of catch too, plus it's a selective method that allows ESA-listed steelhead and salmon to go on upstream and do their thing.
    It makes management manageable, or at least gives it a start.

    Now Derek, as a former commercial I can tell you those guys aren't going to let go easy. You get salty blood, you can't let go man. There has to be an alternative.


    But commercial gillnetters could make a decent living recovering derelict nets and crab traps, couldn't they? We need creative solutions where folks start to win AND the ecosystem benefits. I'm just a dumbass lousy caster and I have ideas. What's the problem with our lawmakers and what's our problem for not putting their feet to the fire?
    eleven pages of this string and we don't have an email campaign organized? how LAME are we?
     
  14. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    let me try summarizing what has been posted over all of these pages. if i miss something, please addd it with your own addendum.

    - native peoples came to the coasts of the PNW as a progney of the 6 women who walked across the ice from siberia (documentation via genome study has this nailed)
    - native peoples occupied a narrow strip of land between the sea and the forest.
    - their lives were focused on survival and as such developed a resource extraction mind set
    - as is hard to imagine, their existence depended on catching and killing
    - first contact with the 'outside', perhaps around the 1400's and subsequent introduced them to goods available via barter. yes, they also bartered among themselves in specific well known areas (celilo as an example)
    - with contact, their lives changed dramatically (argue this any way you wish)
    - many native americans were moved, physically, to dediticated 'reservations' so the white settlers could occupy the choice properties villages were built on.
    - did the native americans 'understand' what was happenning? seems as though the s'klallam did, refused to move, assimilated, and were able to homestead.
    - why didn't the other tribes do the same thing? don't know.
    - extraction continued during this time with trade with the settlers occupying their lives
    - until the settlers started fishing themselves and stopped relying on the native americans
    - the few who acquired land shifted gears in order to survive in this new age
    - there remained a feeling, however, of having been taken to the cleaners, without compensation, whatever that means in todays world
    - enter boldt, a single human, making a single decision, never challenged
    - did boldt mean that native americans were entitled to 50% of the harvest to maintain their traditional way of life? or did he mean they should become commercial fishermen in the true sense of commercial fishing?
    - there is no arguement regarding subsistence, ceremonial, and recently added, barter
    - traditional ways of fishing, traps, were employed because they were efficient, required little person power, freeing individuals for other survival tasks, and produced results
    - the tribes seem more interested, today, in keeping members 'employed' not reducing the numbers of people necessary to carry out fishing
    - the unregulated fishing, yes that is what it is and blessed by boldt, has and continues to degrade wild fish runs all over the PNW
    - other factors important to address?? of course but we don't have 10-20-30-40-50 years to correct the problems non native americans have created
    - removing ALL nets has zero to do with the 50%. it has a great deal to do with efficiency of fishing which the tribes will not support (remember it puts folks out of work)
    - one man's opinion (boldt) has never been challenged and as long as the supply of fish seemed endless, what was the point
    - the supply of fish is NOT endless, and the end is right around the corner, time to challenge boldt in a federal court of law
    - the challenge?
    1. All nets out
    2. All traditional fishing (ceremonial, subsistence and barter-not sale of, exempt)
    3. All commercial fishing regulated with strict quota enforcement by a single agency



    add what you like but please don't assume that boldt cannot be challenged or modified. it set an important precident in a time of abundent fish. we are far beyond that time and the situation has turned grim and is getting more so.
     
  15. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    266
    Location:
    Bellingham
    I am going with #3 with a very short buffer before a #1.

    I believe better regulation will certainly help in this case but that may be too late.