Tribe Drift Netting Spawning Steelhead on the Hoh?

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#31
The Hoh not being listed is also dumb... it will be in time with current practices.

For some, it's all about preaching conservation and saving the planet and species... until it limits their ability to fish or hunt (or reduces traffic and cash for businesses). Like many things in life you cannot have it all.
 

ak_powder_monkey

Proud to Be Alaskan
#32
they get half the harvestable surplus and the river is open to fishing so....
Honest question, Jim: What can WDFW do in this case? In the past, my calls regarding anything tribal to WDFW went nowhere, as they said they aren't in any place to do anything. Do you think there might be another agency that would have more authority on the matter? I'm just speaking from my past experiences, but you're far more experienced in this than I.

they could close the sport fishery, half of nothing is zero
 

Freestone

Not to be confused with freestoneangler
#34
they get half the harvestable surplus and the river is open to fishing so....they could close the sport fishery, half of nothing is zero​
Like James said, it is based on run size and it is kind of like water rights - use it or loose it. If we don't take our half, our unharvested portion becomes available for tribal harvest.​
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
#35
Like James said, it is based on run size and it is kind of like water rights - use it or loose it. If we don't take our half, our unharvested portion becomes available for tribal harvest.​
I believe that has never actually been tested in court. The tribes may indeed win, but we have never pushed the legality of foregone opportunity. Of course, the idea of foregone opportunity was started by us when the tribes did not have the ability to harvest their half after Boldt.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#36
I believe that has never actually been tested in court. The tribes may indeed win, but we have never pushed the legality of foregone opportunity. Of course, the idea of foregone opportunity was started by us when the tribes did not have the ability to harvest their half after Boldt.
I sadly learned that this rule does not apply to steelhead. If we do not harvest our steelhead, there is NO legal recourse for us as the forgone opportunity only applied to food fish. :(
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#41
"They should know that these nets are being used where native steelhead are trying to spawn.
This is legal, but we, as co-managers have a say in how many fish are harvested."

THIS IS RIDICULOUS...AND SAYS TO ME THAT WA TRIBES ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES. ALSO WHY, AS MUCH AS MANY ON THIS SITE HATES TO HEAR, WE SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD BY BEING WILLING TO CLOSE ALL FISHING ON RIVERS IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM THE BEST ODDS FOR RECOVERY.

THIS IS ALSO WHY I DO NOT SUPPORT THE OCCUPY SKAGIT EFFORT...I BELIEVE IT IS SHORT SIGHTED AND SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE.
So...with your first sentence you condemn all WA TRIBES for the acts of a few individuals in one tribe who may in fact be acting legally? Nice work there! After all that heavy lifting you should take a break but with zealous fervor you continue with the suggestion that we should be willing to close all rivers to fishing? And in closing you accuse others who demonstrate to practice responsible C&R fishing of "sends the wrong message".

This post of yours that I quoted is the #1 reason why your message, no matter what intentions may be behind it, will not be taken seriously.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#42
I know they are acting legally...that is the point...which I find ridiculous. I think the tribes could (should) take a much more aggressive position on this. Steelhead stocks have been in trouble for years, yet we (collectively) continue to stress them. Why is it so difficult for folks to opt out until stocks are well clear or danger? I love fishing for them as much as most of you, but have come to the conclusion that it is just not worth the risk.

I think it difficult to argue that if we all take the most conservative approach to saving these fish (by leaving them the hell alone) they'll have the best chance for survival. To argue otherwise means there is a personal agenda being sought; typically of the monetary or narcissistic variety.

I'm curious, if the tribes were willing to take a complete hands off, no fishing position, would you?
 

JesseC

Active Member
#43
I know they are acting legally...that is the point...which I find ridiculous. I think the tribes could (should) take a much more aggressive position on this. Steelhead stocks have been in trouble for years, yet we (collectively) continue to stress them. Why is it so difficult for folks to opt out until stocks are well clear or danger? I love fishing for them as much as most of you, but have come to the conclusion that it is just not worth the risk.

I think it difficult to argue that if we all take the most conservative approach to saving these fish (by leaving them the hell alone) they'll have the best chance for survival. To argue otherwise means there is a personal agenda being sought; typically of the monetary or narcissistic variety.

I'm curious, if the tribes were willing to take a complete hands off, no fishing position, would you?
I have some pretty cool pictures of you holding a nice steelhead in December. What sort of illogical PETA shit have you been smoking since?! ;)
 
#44
I know they are acting legally...that is the point...which I find ridiculous. I think the tribes could (should) take a much more aggressive position on this. Steelhead stocks have been in trouble for years, yet we (collectively) continue to stress them. Why is it so difficult for folks to opt out until stocks are well clear or danger? I love fishing for them as much as most of you, but have come to the conclusion that it is just not worth the risk.

I think it difficult to argue that if we all take the most conservative approach to saving these fish (by leaving them the hell alone) they'll have the best chance for survival. To argue otherwise means there is a personal agenda being sought; typically of the monetary or narcissistic variety.

I'm curious, if the tribes were willing to take a complete hands off, no fishing position, would you?

Unfortunately buddy you don't know shit about what is or isn't happening on the coast unless you read about it on an Internet forum. Because the tribe claims they are fishing under a "ceremonial permit" doesn't mean much to me. It's all apart of the illusion that there are rules and that "someone" is watching. I don't buy it the whole process is poisoned and I KNOW that. I have emails in and phone calls waiting to be returned but I predict they all go unanswered. Until then maybe we should all stick to what we know and not chitter chat the BS on the internets. Call or email if you care and don't apologize. When they run you out of run with two sleds and drift nets on an unscheduled day they don't apologize either
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#45
Everyone knows the Bogachiel only has hatchery stock...both the clipped and un-clipped variety ;) All kidding aside, I'm OK with not fishing for them at all if it gives them the best chance of survival and hopefully rebuilding numbers.